Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on January 06, 2016, 09:06:30 AM
-
BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short (as I read it on cathinfo)
BODers - believes that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
-
"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."
"Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ."
"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church."
The above erroneous propositions were specifically condemned by the Church.
-
The above erroneous propositions were specifically condemned by the Church.
I don't understand your response since you are a BODer and therefore believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Just as we all know that all Catholics are not saved, as I understand it, BODers of course do not believe that all Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. are saved, just that some can be saved. Is that not right?
So, I'll make it clearer:
BODers - believes that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
-
There are a very, very few BoDers who limit BoD only to those such as catechumens who have embraced the Catholic faith (at least explicitly belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) and are lacking on the Sacrament itself in order to be saved.
But, yes, most BoDers believe that non-Catholics can be saved.
-
The above erroneous propositions were specifically condemned by the Church.
I don't understand your response since you are a BODer and therefore believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Just as we all know that all Catholics are not saved, as I understand it, BODers of course do not believe that all Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. are saved, just that some can be saved. Is that not right?
So, I'll make it clearer:
BODers - believes that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
The logical fallacy you are employing is called a "Hasty Generalization" or "Oversimplification".
I believe exactly what the Church teaches.
Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice."
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
"...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."
-
The logical fallacy you are employing is called a "Hasty Generalization" or "Oversimplification".
I believe exactly what the Church teaches.
Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice."
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
"...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."
Those quotes are not clear to me. Why don't you just spell out what is wrong with my "in short" as far as BODers go. It should be a simple matter. It is what you believe, so, just spell it out.
-
... since you are a BODer and therefore believe...
The logical fallacy you are employing here is an "Extension", or more commonly, the "Straw Man" argument. What is the point of your effort here?
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard the embarrassment of suggesting we all agree?
-
Those quotes are not clear to me. Why don't you just spell out what is wrong with my "in short" as far as BODers go. It should be a simple matter. It is what you believe, so, just spell it out.
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Catechumens? Is that what it's all about for you? I doubt that is it for the other BODers from everything I read here. If it is they must have a lot of time on their hands. Who cares about a catechumen, what are the chances? No, no way that is what they are saying, they are debating the sides that I put in short, no doubt about it.
-
Catechumens? Is that what it's all about for you? I doubt that is it for bla bla blabla bla bla bla...
You remind me of the troll in De tre bukkene Bruse.
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD, I am up in the air on this now.
If holding the position that rebirth/regeneration does occur for the Catechumen in BoD, I would definitely be disagreeing with St Thomas and St Alphonsus.
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD, I am up in the air on this now.
If holding the position that rebirth/regeneration does occur for the Catechumen in BoD, I would definitely be disagreeing with St Thomas and St Alphonsus.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law is pretty clear on the topic:
CODEX IURIS CANONICI
CAPUT III.
De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.
CAN. 1239.
§ 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
§ 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
§ 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."
-
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
"I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "
Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De P r e s b y t e r o Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD, I am up in the air on this now.
The logical fallacy employed here is a "Red Herring" , distracting the discussion through a false premise (i.e. "Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD") followed by a boastful lack of conformity to Church teaching.
-
catechumen quotes...
OK, JAM you've made your point, please allow others discuss the OP of this thread, you are derailing my thread with what I consider useless debate. Please don't dilute my thread with further discussion about a catechumen. I'll remember your lines next time I need to console someone who had a catechumen relative or friend who died. Though I have never known or heard of anyone in my 60+ years on Earth.
-
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
"I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "
Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De P r e s b y t e r o Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Why are you quoting from saints when there are numerous dogmatic decrees which disagree with them?
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD, I am up in the air on this now.
The logical fallacy employed here is a "Red Herring" , distracting the discussion through a false premise (i.e. "Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD") followed by a boastful lack of conformity to Church teaching.
Trent session 6, CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
"But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just...."
Trent Session 5, On Original Sin #5
"...For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.
So the grace of baptism DEFINED by Trent is to be reborn/regenerated. The theory of BoD
as taught by St Thomas and St Alphonsus does not eliminate the temporal punishment due to sin, which is contrary to the infallible definition.
That is why I said I was up in the air about it. To debate in favor of BoD you MUST contend that the Catechumen was reborn and had all temporal punishment due to sin washed away too. This obviously would repudiate the Saints on the theory.
The video below clearly explains the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds#t=1866
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Nothing but a presumption in a pastoral context wherein the Church keeps open the possibility of their salvation. There's never any guarantee that anyone buried (you leave out the context) has been saved. There's merely a presumption regarding the possibility of their salvation. Conversely, there's a presumption against the possibility of salvation for ѕυιcιdєs (or at least there was before the Novus Ordo), but that didn't preclude absolutely the possibility that they could be saved. This provision in Canon Law does not constitute doctrine, but implies nothing more than a toleration of the opinion by the Church. In the past the Church has FORBIDDEN the Christian burial of unbaptized catechumens. Perhaps, as Karl Rahner stated, it's because the Church has grown increasingly "optimistic" about their changes for salvation.
If you want to believe that catechumens who died without Baptism could be saved, I have no problem with you. Carry on. But don't tell me that non-Catholics can be saved.
-
The theory of BoD as taught by St Thomas and St Alphonsus does not eliminate the temporal punishment due to sin, which is contrary to the infallible definition.
This is absolutely correct and irrefutable. St. Thomas' and St. Alphonsus' theory that BoD does not eliminate all the temporal punishment due to sin ex opere operato but only to a degree ex opere operantis must be rejected as contrary to Catholic dogma. If one believes in BoD, one must conclude that those who are saved by BoD would go straight to heaven if they died without committing any other sins immediately after being justified by BoD. There's no way around that.
But if we must reject these speculations by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, then that calls into question their entire rationale for and understanding of BoD.
-
I believe that "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD, I am up in the air on this now.
The logical fallacy employed here is a "Red Herring" , distracting the discussion through a false premise (i.e. "Since the grace of baptism (rebirth/regeneration) does not occur in BoD") followed by a boastful lack of conformity to Church teaching.
REMOVED
First and foremost, I would not subject myself to watching the propaganda espoused by this fraudulent organization - they have no authority whatsoever to supply their poisoned conjecture to Catholic discourse.
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
-
From the past....
And I've pointed out that Trent cited this very passage as an amplification of the "without water or the desire" passage.
So either Trent is saying that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it (which Trent attributed to the work of the Holy Ghost), for unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit ...
Or else Trent is directly contradicting Our Lord ... if taken the way the BoDers would have it understood, as an EITHER ... OR.
Also, if it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is also patently false.
-
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
One of the many problems BODers have is, neglecting to acknowledge that Trent is teaching about the sacraments, not some desire for them.
As far as Canon 4 is concerned, BODers cling to that canon as if it is teaching about the sacrament of baptism - where do they get that from? - it plainly says the sacraments are necessary for salvation, but not all are necessary for every individual. BODers take it upon themselves to use this canon to contradict Trent by saying the sacrament of baptism is not necessary - and per Canon 4, anathematize as they say it.
Not sure why they want to go out of their way to anathematize themselves, but I've given up trying to figure that one out.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Your feeling is theologically sound. Anyone who dies in the state of grace is saved. Sanctifying grace can only be obtained within the Church. Some who lack one or more of the following:
1. Sacramental Baptism
2. Profession of the Faith (one can have the Faith without professing it)
3. Submission (or at least the will to submit to) legitimate ecclesiastical authority
Can obtain sanctifying grace within the Church if they have a supernatural Faith and perfect charity which would mean they first need perfect contrition if guilty of mortal sin.
Supernatural Faith is based upon God revealing and cannot just be a logical conclusion otherwise it is just a natural faith. Perfect charity is the love of God above all things and the willingness to do His will regardless of the obstacles this would pose. Perfect contrition is sincere sorrow for sin (with the intent not to commit that sin again) which is the result of the love of God.
All who die in state of sanctifying grace are saved and non-members of the Church can die in this state.
By member I am speaking of the visible members who are sacramentally baptized, profess the faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority, a non-member lacks one or more of the above but can still be saved within the Church by desire partaking of her inner bonds of unity which is sanctifying grace, Faith, Hope, Charity, the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost. They are within the Church though not technically as actual visible members (though when they die they are members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant).
Baptism of Desire is infallibly taught which means those not sacramentally baptized i.e. non-members can be saved within the Church.
No one is saved outside of the Church and there is no exception to this Dogma.
No one is saved who does not have a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity. There are no exceptions to these necessities either.
Contrarily no one is damned who dies in a state of sanctifying grace. There is no exception to this as well. And no one in a state of sanctifying grace dies outside the Church. There is no exception to this either.
It should not be so complicated to state and understand but the Feeneyites have made it so.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
This is a nonsensical argument. By this line of reasoning we cannot ever be certain of anything, in fact everything ever decreed by the Church is (could be) pointless as it could also be true the opposite.
After all, we're not God, who's to say there ain't all sorts of exceptions to dogmas?
Who knows? After all God is not even bound to His own sacraments no?
Who am I to judge as good Jorge says?
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Whoever has not received the sacrament of baptism cannot be in the state of grace. Who are YOU to say an infidel went to heaven - are you God?
-
Baptism of Desire is infallibly taught which means those not sacramentally baptized i.e. non-members can be saved within the Church.
You've repeated this crap so many times you've got yourself convinced, you would be much better off if you, who are yourself a "convert from the NO", took your own advice and take a vow of silence and do penance for the rest of your life rather than keep preaching the NO salvation crap...... Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fixing-the-conciliar-church) We would have to take over the formerly Catholic structures. And re-consecrate everything. Just to start. If they authentically convert they can join us as laypeople but they [converts from the NO] probably should take a vow of silence and do penance for the rest of their lives refraining from all speaking and writing apart from that which is necessary, say in Confession for instance.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
:facepalm:
This completely dodges the issue under consideration. Question is whether anyone in the new dispensation can enter into a state of grace without the Sacrament of Baptism. This is nothing more than begging the question, assuming that it's possible for someone to be in a state of grace without the Sacrament of Baptism.
In the Old Law, of course, this was not true. St. Joseph, while having died in a state of grace, could not enter heaven. Why?
So this is just a nonsensical non-argument, a circular argument in which you use the assumption that someone can be in a state of grace without Baptism to prove that someone can be saved without Baptism. You are doing nothing but formulating a tautology.
Something which LoH also does not seem capable of comprehending, having called this reasoning "sound".
-
You've repeated this crap so many times you've got yourself convinced
:applause:
And, in essence, that is ALL that BoD theology is founded on, the repetition of a gratuitously asserted opinion, without any theological proof whatsoever -- along the lines of repeating a lie often enough so that it starts to take on the appearance of truth.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Those may be your feelings, but it is all there is. The Church is not at all about emotions or feelings, but about facts and certainties founded upon Divine Revelation.
The Church has already long defined that no one enters into the State of Grace without Faith and sacramental Baptism. Therefore, no Jew, Moslem, Hindu. Etc can be said to be in the State of Grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir of the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because God has revealed it.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
:facepalm:
This completely dodges the issue under consideration. Question is whether anyone in the new dispensation can enter into a state of grace without the Sacrament of Baptism. This is nothing more than begging the question, assuming that it's possible for someone to be in a state of grace without the Sacrament of Baptism.
In the Old Law, of course, this was not true. St. Joseph, while having died in a state of grace, could not enter heaven. Why?
So this is just a nonsensical non-argument, a circular argument in which you use the assumption that someone can be in a state of grace without Baptism to prove that someone can be saved without Baptism. You are doing nothing but formulating a tautology.
Something which LoH also does not seem capable of comprehending, having called this reasoning "sound".
I don't assume anything, I leave it up to God to decide who is in the State of Grace, and if that person is found to be in God's good grace he is saved.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Those may be your feelings, but it is all there is. The Church is not at all about emotions or feelings, but about facts and certainties founded upon Divine Revelation.
The Church has already long defined that no one enters into the State of Grace without Faith and sacramental Baptism. Therefore, no Jew, Moslem, Hindu. Etc can be said to be in the State of Grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir of the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because God has revealed it.
I never said the above bolded but your pope certainly does.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Whoever has not received the sacrament of baptism cannot be in the state of grace. Who are YOU to say an infidel went to heaven - are you God?
I challenge you Stubborn to find the post where I said what you said, I said.
Do it NOW or pray an Act of Contrition!
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Those may be your feelings, but it is all there is. The Church is not at all about emotions or feelings, but about facts and certainties founded upon Divine Revelation.
The Church has already long defined that no one enters into the State of Grace without Faith and sacramental Baptism. Therefore, no Jew, Moslem, Hindu. Etc can be said to be in the State of Grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir of the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because God has revealed it.
I never said the above bolded but your pope certainly does.
Did you see the last Pope Francis' scandalous interfaith video?
That is your "feelings" in action right there and BOD is the door from where they can maneuver.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Those may be your feelings, but it is all there is. The Church is not at all about emotions or feelings, but about facts and certainties founded upon Divine Revelation.
The Church has already long defined that no one enters into the State of Grace without Faith and sacramental Baptism. Therefore, no Jew, Moslem, Hindu. Etc can be said to be in the State of Grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir of the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because God has revealed it.
I never said the above bolded but your pope certainly does.
Did you see the last Pope Francis' scandalous interfaith video?
That is your "feelings" in action right there and BOD is the door from where they can maneuver.
After all, they can all said to be "invincible ignorants", "hidden Catholics", "anonymous Christians" who belong to the "Soul" of the Church and be heirs of Heaven as such.
Salvific Invincible Ignorance (via last minute BOD) is such an obliterating heresy. THE heresy of the day.
-
My feelings on this is: Everyone who is in the State of Grace when they pass over are saved. PERIOD!
Who are YOU to say who is and who is Not in the State of Grace, ever! Are you God?
Whoever has not received the sacrament of baptism cannot be in the state of grace. Who are YOU to say an infidel went to heaven - are you God?
I challenge you Stubborn to find the post where I said what you said, I said.
Do it NOW or pray an Act of Contrition!
Ok, I exaggerated in that you did not say an infidel went to heaven. To me, you posting "The salvation of those outside the Church" here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5) in addition to your promotion over the years of salvation via No Sacrament At All is what I was referring to in my post. So while you did not say those exact words, you've promoted them consistently over the years.
-
I didn't write that article either, I put it into the library at that time because the Dimond brother were telling fibs about CMRI and using only the Title of the article to prove their lies against CMRI. An article which CMRI did not write either. May I suggest you might want to read the article to get a clearer picture of what it actually says, (Church teaching) not just what the Dimond Bros want you to believe, and hope you would only read the Title.
Like I said prior to this post, it is YOUR pope who says, those things clearly and without a doubt as to what he means. But he is still your pope, as you defend Catholic or not.
-
fibs about CMRI and using only the Title of the article to prove their lies against CMRI
And the title is all you need to know. It's a word for word contradiction of Catholic dogma. That would be like my writing an article entitled "The Original Sin of Mary".
But even then it's not true that they didn't go into the article itself; they showed that the entire thing was an exercise in EENS denial from beginning to end.
And the CMRI cultists are the most virulent deniers of EENS here on CI ... and that alone tells me all I need to know about the CMRI.
-
After all, they can all said to be "invincible ignorants", "hidden Catholics", "anonymous Christians" who belong to the "Soul" of the Church and be heirs of Heaven as such.
(...)
Yes and in fact, the N.O.'s "unofficial ban on conversion" would be the correct stance if that were true.
Preaching them the Gospel, let alone converting them, would jeopardise their salvation more than helping them, blessed as they are in their state of "ignorance".
In fact, a cynic might say that Catholicism is essentially a curse, whereby adherents have a disproportionately harder time pleasing God and a lifetime of self-imposed sacrifice for the hope of obtaining the same as a pagan living carefree according to the dictates of "natural law".
Benedict XVI pondered this in one of his books and arrived at the same conclusion, only in regards to "salvific" protestant cults instead of "invincibly ignorant", which is merely the subsequent step.
-
And the title is all you need to know. It's a word for word contradiction of Catholic dogma. That would be like my writing an article entitled "The Original Sin of Mary".
But even then it's not true that they didn't go into the article itself; they showed that the entire thing was an exercise in EENS denial from beginning to end.
And the CMRI cultists are the most virulent deniers of EENS here on CI ... and that alone tells me all I need to know about the CMRI.
ipse dixit
-
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
"I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "
Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De P r e s b y t e r o Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Why are you quoting from saints when there are numerous dogmatic decrees which disagree with them?
I guess those saints must have disagreed with those dogmatic decrees, making them heretics, outside the Church, and not saints at all...
-
Why are you quoting from saints when there are numerous dogmatic decrees which disagree with them?
I guess those saints must have disagreed with those dogmatic decrees, making them heretics, outside the Church, and not saints at all...
That's one of the worst guesses I've ever seen and one which, as per usual among BODers, does not address the question.
Why not address the question with an answer?
Dogmatic decrees are infallible, a saint is not infallible. Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.
-
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
"I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "
Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De P r e s b y t e r o Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Why are you quoting from saints when there are numerous dogmatic decrees which disagree with them?
I guess those saints must have disagreed with those dogmatic decrees, making them heretics, outside the Church, and not saints at all...
St Thomas died in 1274 and the Council Of Trent ended in 1563.
So, 289 yrs. after St Thomas died Trent defined what the "grace of baptism" is (rebirth/regeneration) which only takes place via the Sacrament which is the instrumental cause, making the soul Immaculate, spotless... and nothing would retard the soul from entrance into heaven immediately. Trent repudiated, by its DEFINITIONS the thoughts St Thomas had on this matter 300 yrs. earlier. So by no means could St Thomas be considered a heretic.
So the bottom line is this, we must believe Trent over the Summa
I do not know why St Alphonsus missed this, I have a hunch why, but that is all it is a hunch.
-
ipse dixit
Coming from someone who has never ever made a theological argument in her life, nor would even recognize one when presented to her, and who pontificates based on her "feelings".
-
Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.
And also what MyrnaM peddles is the condemned error of the Jansenists #30.
-
PPXII on Theologians
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749: “The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
==========================================
Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953 said:
The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.
-
Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.
And also what MyrnaM peddles is the condemned error of the Jansenists #30.
Suffice it to say that the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Yes, the Baptism of Water impresses a character and is a Sacrament. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”
-
PPXII on Theologians
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749: “The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
==========================================
Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953 said:
The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.
Unfortunately, the BODers reject the authority of dogmatic decrees because the decrees do not agree with their interpretation.
So unless you can supply a saint to interpret the above decrees to agree with their doctrine of salvation via No Sacrament At All, you'll remain just another heretic feeneyite to the BODers.
-
(...)
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE (...)
MyrnaM, I only meant the option of taking a Saint/Doctor (expressely St.Augustine in the condemnation) above the teaching of the Church, only.
Not saying you are wrong or anything.
Quote:
1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.
-
Pope Pius IX taught that it is an absolute necessity to use the dogmatic decrees to refute error - hence the reason for the question.
And also what MyrnaM peddles is the condemned error of the Jansenists #30.
Suffice it to say that the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Yes, the Baptism of Water impresses a character and is a Sacrament. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”
In light of the clear evidence in regards to the DEFINITION of "the grace of baptism" per Trent, MyrnaM read this passage again
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Hebrews 6:2
The plural is used because more than ONE person will be baptized, as with the imposition of hands....
If there were more then one kind of baptism, wouldn't it read Of the doctrine of baptisms' with an apostrophe?
-
Suffice it to say that the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Yes, the Baptism of Water impresses a character and is a Sacrament. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”
Is this what you learn from heretical CMRI?
It is a heresy to say there are "three" Baptisms. There are NOT "three baptisms" and never have been. As St. Paul said it: we have one Faith and one Baptism. We attest to the same thing in the Nicene Creed at every Mass.
The three Baptism lie began in America with the introduction of the the Baltimore Catechism by notorious Americanist Cardinal Gibbons. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical entitled "Testem Benevolenciae" to correct the errors of "Americanism." You should read this.
Here is a link to it: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm. From the beginning, our American Catholic forefathers were weak and accommodating, starting with Bishop Carroll.
-
Cantarella if I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
-
Furthermore since you all want DOCTRINE, would the Bible satisfy you. We read in Hebrews 6;2 about Baptism it is described as in plural. “of the doctrine of baptismS …”
There is only one Baptism...
But what is the doctrine of baptisms? Not as if there were many baptisms, but one only. Why then did he express it in the plural? Because he had said, not laying again a foundation of repentance. For if he again baptized them and catechised them afresh, and having been baptized at the beginning they were again taught what things ought to be done and what ought not, they would remain perpetually incorrigible.
It is not open to them to say, If we live slothfully we will be baptized again, we will be catechised again, we will again receive the Spirit; even if now we fall from the faith, we shall be able again by being baptized, to wash away our sins, and to attain to the same state as before. You are deceived (he says) in supposing these things.
See this link:
http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/baptism.html
-
Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:
12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
-
Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:
12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
Well thanks, however know that CMRI does not say that, but YOUR POPE does.
-
Isn't it a bit ironical that a person who is destined to be saved via BOD may sincerely believe that one cannot be saved in the Catholic religion?
-
Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:
12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
Well thanks, however know that CMRI does not say that, but YOUR POPE does.
Myrna, fyi, you champion the heresy every single time that you post on the subject that no sacrament is necessary - and hold that man is justified / saved by faith alone, same as all CMRI and BODers - just the exact same as all the conciliar popes.
-
Isn't it a bit ironical that a person who is destined to be saved via BOD may sincerely believe that one cannot be saved in the Catholic religion?
I think it's just perverse.
-
BODers - believes that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Protestants and E.O. are already Baptized.
Maybe they can be saved via a “True Faith” of desire (T.F.O.D.) as a distinction...albeit unknowingly (aka anonymous Christian)???
Perhaps as long as they’re invincibly ignorant, because if they figure out it happens to be the Catholic Faith; they can’t hold the space too long before they have to actually convert (days? weeks?) or else they’ll lose their status as ‘invincible’ and instead become ‘culpable.’ …Ehhh; never-mind. Crazy times.
-
BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short (as I read it on cathinfo)
BODers - believes that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
I would like to respond here because I do not fit into either of your categories. I am sure some here will know my position because I have said it before on this forum and have held it for a while.
I believe in BOD but I do not believe that anyone in a false religion can be saved. I believe in BOD only for those who are already believing Catholics who just haven't been able to be baptized yet. This would apply to mostly catechumens. I do not believe that anyone in a false religion can be saved. Strangely enough, in holding this position I have been attacked by the normal BOD ers for being a "feeneyite" because I believe that the Catholic faith and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. I have not been attacked much by "feeneyites" even though I believe in BOD. I think the poster here named Nishant holds a similar position and a few other posters who I do not remember their names have told me they hold a similar position.
I must say that I am not confident in my position and I think I might be wrong because I find many of the "feeneyite" arguments to be more convincing than the BOD er arguments. But I choose to believe what I believe because of the authority of St Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus who I respect in my ignorance. I notice that many BOD ers like quoting these two saints to support BOD even though they disagree with the belief of these two saints that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation. I consider this to be dishonest.
Anyway, please forgive my ignorance. Although I consider myself to be intelligent, I have a lot to learn about the faith because I never had proper religious instruction. All I know is a few bits of the faith I have learned from the internet and also from sermons at Mass and through books but I have not received a proper education.
-
Strangely enough, in holding this position I have been attacked by the normal BOD ers for being a "feeneyite" because I believe that the Catholic faith and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. I have not been attacked much by "feeneyites" even though I believe in BOD. I think the poster here named Nishant holds a similar position and a few other posters who I do not remember their names have told me they hold a similar position.
Yes, Nishant too has been attacked for being a "Feeneyite". In that case, so was St. Thomas Aquinas. Msgr. Fenton indicated that the explicit belief in the Holy Trinity & Incarnation position was STILL the majority opinion in his day. So this shows the true colors of the BoD crusaders. Indeed, for most of them it has never been about the rare case of a catechumen or catechumen-like person who might be saved this way, someone who's a Catholic in every way except for not having received in actu the Sacrament of Baptism itself. No, this is about eroding the dogma EENS. They simply use BoD disingenuously as the mechanism by which they can undermine EENS. And, no, Matto, no true "Feeneyite" would ever find fault with your position or argue with you. Only the more radical Dimondites would do this.
But I choose to believe what I believe because of the authority of St Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus who I respect in my ignorance.
And no one can fault you for this, Matto ... to go with a couple Doctors of the Church vs. people like us. Indeed, St. Bernard in accepting BoD stated that he would rather "err with Augustine" than be right on his own. So you're echoing his very sentiments. Of course, most people at the time didn't know that St. Augustine FORCEFULLY retracted his belief in BoD.
I notice that many BOD ers like quoting these two saints to support BOD even though they disagree with the belief of these two saints that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation. I consider this to be dishonest.
Yes, no doubt. They'll bludgeon us over the head with the "authority" of St. Thomas, demand to know how we could dare to disagree with him, and then themselves reject the same authority and disagree with him in promoting their implicit faith theories ... in addition to promoting Pelagianism and denying the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
So the Feeneyite crusade is not against BoD per se but against:
1) rejection of EENS
2) Pelagianism
3) Protestant heresy that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation
And it's these very three that are at the core of every single error in Vatican II.
-
I would like to respond here because I do not fit into either of your categories. I am sure some here will know my position because I have said it before on this forum and have held it for a while.
I believe in BOD but I do not believe that anyone in a false religion can be saved. I believe in BOD only for those who are already believing Catholics who just haven't been able to be baptized yet. This would apply to mostly catechumens. I do not believe that anyone in a false religion can be saved. Strangely enough, in holding this position I have been attacked by the normal BOD ers for being a "feeneyite" because I believe that the Catholic faith and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. I have not been attacked much by "feeneyites" even though I believe in BOD. I think the poster here named Nishant holds a similar position and a few other posters who I do not remember their names have told me they hold a similar position.
I must say that I am not confident in my position and I think I might be wrong because I find many of the "feeneyite" arguments to be more convincing than the BOD er arguments. But I choose to believe what I believe because of the authority of St Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus who I respect in my ignorance. I notice that many BOD ers like quoting these two saints to support BOD even though they disagree with the belief of these two saints that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation. I consider this to be dishonest.
Anyway, please forgive my ignorance. Although I consider myself to be intelligent, I have a lot to learn about the faith because I never had proper religious instruction. All I know is a few bits of the faith I have learned from the internet and also from sermons at Mass and through books but I have not received a proper education.
A genuine & beautiful post Matto,
You bring up a good point in this day and age, because it would be near impossible to prove pertinacity (unless you recognize the local diocesan ‘authority’) if theoretically you happened to be in error. Meaning, even in ‘error,’ you would still be on firm footing because you’ve had popes, saints, etc. who were in error(s) but not condemned as heretics (i.e. St. Thomas and his position on the Immaculate Conception). In fact, many traditional Catholics throughout history, in particular, those who never used (or had access) to internet forums, manuals, or dogmatic teachings etc.; but learned their faith via oratory (local priests) and written catechisms (some taught BOD); most likely didn't know all the Dogmas of the Church (especially deeper dogmas or more nuanced teachings) or at some level didn’t completely understand them or simply misread them leading to a wrong interpretation.
However, this is banking that they would change their position in a heartbeat if they knew what the true position was (accepted correction) or else they would be culpable into being pertinacious into fitting the definition of ‘heretic.’ In essence saying that if St. Thomas knew that the Immaculate Conception was defined dogma, it’s assumed that he would have changed his position, thus avoiding pertinacity which is necessary to be a ‘heretic.’
Traditionally, a recommended position change that has the weight of pertinacity typically came from the legitimate authorities like the local diocesan priest/ bishop (or higher authority). Not from the internet or manuals or councils which most laypeople traditionally either didn’t have access to or internet forums to exchange ideas and positions. Unless that is, you recognize the local N.O. -- then an argument could be made that if you recognize them as the legitimate authorities; then the congruent (honest) thing to do would be to follow their mandates without violating the law of non-contradiction.
Unique to this day and age; it could be argued that there is more pressure on an aware Catholic layperson to use logic, critical thinking and right reason to form the conscience against culpability (to what degree, I don’t know); in particular; if infused knowledge or illumination on the truth of the matter occurred on a particular position. It would be built in part, on using the advantages of electronic technology today (via access to information using Catholic fora, manuals, dogmatic teachings, etc.); -- meaning that the Catholic today has the potential to have more knowledge and be more informed (via their intellect and the use of right reason) than Catholics of days past and therefore more culpable on following what the true positions are in accordance to the truth of the matter. Which in turn, could be God's way of manifesting the reality that it will have to be the laypeople who will have to rise up and take back the buildings and rid the heretics in Rome (unless God does it directly via an end of the world scenario or forcing a major reset of ridding the rotten religious structures and fruitless religious faith identities as we know it).
-
1) rejection of EENS
2) Pelagianism
3) Protestant heresy that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation
And it's these very three that are at the core of every single error in Vatican II.
Unfortunately, not just in Vatican II per se; but also in pre-Vatican II theology references and manuals (in particular, the early to mid 1900's).
And I'm not referring to BOD, but to espousing a theology synonymous to Karl Rahner's controversial 'Anonymous Christian' doctrine that even the apostate Hans Küng (who himself denied Papal Infallibility & had his teaching faculties revoked) thought was repellent.
-
Msgr. Fenton indicated that the explicit belief in the Holy Trinity & Incarnation position was STILL the majority opinion in his day.
Matto, a true position does not have inconsistencies. Note this admission (above) by Ladislaus as if it were an acceptable thing! That is to say, how could something be a previously defined solemn dogma, and then later for it to be acceptable to suggest it may not be so? It cannot, because the Church says that to call into doubt a previously defined dogma makes one fall completely away from the true Faith. Ladislaus is a danger to your faith.
-
BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short (as I read it on cathinfo)
BODers - believes that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuudists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
I would like to respond here because I do not fit into either of your categories. I am sure some here will know my position because I have said it before on this forum and have held it for a while.
I believe in BOD but I do not believe that anyone in a false religion can be saved. I believe in BOD only for those who are already believing Catholics who just haven't been able to be baptized yet. This would apply to mostly catechumens. I do not believe that anyone in a false religion can be saved. Strangely enough, in holding this position I have been attacked by the normal BOD ers for being a "feeneyite" because I believe that the Catholic faith and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. I have not been attacked much by "feeneyites" even though I believe in BOD. I think the poster here named Nishant holds a similar position and a few other posters who I do not remember their names have told me they hold a similar position.
I must say that I am not confident in my position and I think I might be wrong because I find many of the "feeneyite" arguments to be more convincing than the BOD er arguments. But I choose to believe what I believe because of the authority of St Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus who I respect in my ignorance. I notice that many BOD ers like quoting these two saints to support BOD even though they disagree with the belief of these two saints that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation. I consider this to be dishonest.
Anyway, please forgive my ignorance. Although I consider myself to be intelligent, I have a lot to learn about the faith because I never had proper religious instruction. All I know is a few bits of the faith I have learned from the internet and also from sermons at Mass and through books but I have not received a proper education.
Matto, regardless of what anyone says, regardless of what great saints and the catechisms teach, Trent infallibly decreed that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - and whoever says they aren't, well, let them anathema.
Note first and foremost that all the BODers, be they priests, bishops, theologians or lay folk and on all the forums have themselves, already been sacramentally baptized.
St. Thomas taught that a BOD is not a sacrament. St. Alphonsus taught that only heretics say the sacrament is not necessary. He says that a BOD is salvation by faith alone - which is what it is, which is what prots teach, which Trent explicitly condemned.
Trent infallibly decrees that Justification, "since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Justification is not salvation. Already admitting that it is possible that Trent infallibly teaches as noted above, (that one can be Justified without the sacrament on account of their desire thereof), but Trent infallibly teaches "as it is written" that without the sacrament, we cannot enter the kingdom of God. This means one can die justified and not enter heaven if that person was not sacramentally baptized with water - which is comparable to what happened to all the Old Testament saints.
This is where the BODers' foundational error is found. They opine, contrary to Trent's infallible teaching, that one who dies justified via their desire alone, gets to heaven without the sacrament - which is contrary to the infallible teaching of Trent and the words of Jesus Christ Himself.
For salvation, Trent infallibly decrees that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation,.....let him be anathema."
Make no mistake about it, it is the infallible teaching of the Church that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, and whoever denies or rejects this dogma, "let him be anathema."
-
Msgr. Fenton indicated that the explicit belief in the Holy Trinity & Incarnation position was STILL the majority opinion in his day.
Matto, a true position does not have inconsistencies. Note this admission (above) by Ladislaus as if it were an acceptable thing! That is to say, how could something be a previously defined solemn dogma, and then later for it to be acceptable to suggest it may not be so? It cannot, because the Church says that to call into doubt a previously defined dogma makes one fall completely away from the true Faith. Ladislaus is a danger to your faith.
McCork is a pertinacious heretic who needs to be completely ignored.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
-
Msgr. Fenton indicated that the explicit belief in the Holy Trinity & Incarnation position was STILL the majority opinion in his day.
Matto, a true position does not have inconsistencies. Note this admission (above) by Ladislaus as if it were an acceptable thing! That is to say, how could something be a previously defined solemn dogma, and then later for it to be acceptable to suggest it may not be so? It cannot, because the Church says that to call into doubt a previously defined dogma makes one fall completely away from the true Faith. Ladislaus is a danger to your faith.
McCork is a pertinacious heretic who needs to be completely ignored.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
Everyone take note...that Laszlo Szijarto has responded, and has NOT addressed what I just said. He diverted from my point just like a typical stinking heretic. My question is, Laszlo, how could you accept Msgr. Fenton accepting a minority belief as a legitimate one, when it calls into doubt a previously defined dogma??
-
For Matto, this below exchange demonstrates the audacity of the BODers.
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
According to the proposition of Our Lord, the answer to the question ihsv asked, is "no". According to a BOD, the answer actually is "yes'. Are the words of Our Lord's subject to a BOD? No, but this is the best example I've seen yet to expose what the common understanding of a BOD leads to.
McCork is a pertinacious heretic who needs to be completely ignored.
Aside from all of McCork's posts testifying the truth of Ladislaus' accusation, the above quote indisputably proves it beyond any doubt whatsoever. It should be obvious that like the rest of us, Ladislaus detests scandal, but unlike the rest of us, he more accurately speaks against it in an undeniably literalness, aimed squarely at "that man by whom the scandal cometh."
Mat. 18:7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
-
For Matto, this below exchange demonstrates the audacity of the BODers.
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
According to the proposition of Our Lord, the answer to the question ihsv asked, is "no". According to a BOD, the answer actually is "yes'. Are the words of Our Lord's subject to a BOD? No, but this is the best example I've seen yet to expose what the common understanding of a BOD leads to.
McCork is a pertinacious heretic who needs to be completely ignored.
Aside from all of McCork's posts testifying the truth of Ladislaus' accusation, the above quote indisputably proves it beyond any doubt whatsoever. It should be obvious that like the rest of us, Ladislaus detests scandal, but unlike the rest of us, he more accurately speaks against it in an undeniably literalness, aimed squarely at "that man by whom the scandal cometh."
Mat. 18:7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
It is typical of heretics to suddenly change the subject, which is what Stubborn just did. He won't address the point either. If it gets to tough, they change the subject.
Take note, what Stubborn suddenly brings up here is from a challenge at the beginning of December where ihsv (a Feeneyite) dropped the ball and hasn't been around for over two months to continue. Yes, I want to continue that with him. Stubborn quotes me out of context, another ploy of heretics. There was a reason why you see in my quote emphasis on the word "your", because I am NOT referring to Scripture. Stubborn doesn't get it.
Back to the matter at hand?
-
My question is, Laszlo, how could you accept Msgr. Fenton accepting a minority belief as a legitimate one, when it calls into doubt a previously defined dogma??
I don't accept this. I was merely pointing out a FACT, something which appears to have escaped your razor-sharp intellect. This represents the decay in faith that led directly to Vatican II. How did Vatican II come about? It was largely the same actors involved.
Now answer the questions that you ignored.
-
For Matto, this below exchange demonstrates the audacity of the BODers.
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
According to the proposition of Our Lord, the answer to the question ihsv asked, is "no". According to a BOD, the answer actually is "yes'. Are the words of Our Lord's subject to a BOD? No, but this is the best example I've seen yet to expose what the common understanding of a BOD leads to.
McCork is a pertinacious heretic who needs to be completely ignored.
Aside from all of McCork's posts testifying the truth of Ladislaus' accusation, the above quote indisputably proves it beyond any doubt whatsoever. It should be obvious that like the rest of us, Ladislaus detests scandal, but unlike the rest of us, he more accurately speaks against it in an undeniably literalness, aimed squarely at "that man by whom the scandal cometh."
Mat. 18:7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
It is typical of heretics to suddenly change the subject, which is what Stubborn just did. He won't address the point either. If it gets to tough, they change the subject.
Take note, what Stubborn suddenly brings up here is from a challenge at the beginning of December where ihsv (a Feeneyite) dropped the ball and hasn't been around for over two months to continue. Yes, I want to continue that with him. Stubborn quotes me out of context, another ploy of heretics. There was a reason why you see in my quote emphasis on the word "your", because I am NOT referring to Scripture. Stubborn doesn't get it.
Back to the matter at hand?
I Quoted you out of context?
ihsv: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
McCork: Yes.
This is what you say is out of context. Sorry McCork, you are a lost cause that others will learn from - if they learn not to do what you do, to not believe what you say, then they will have learned something worthwhile from you by learning what not to do.
-
For your reference, McCork. I've highlighted the issues you need to address.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
-
For your reference, McCork. I've highlighted the issues you need to address.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
I see what principle you are trying to present. That is why I ask you to be consistent with your principle if you believe it. If you allow Msgr. Fenton to not condemn the minority opinion, then why would you condemn me for it?
-
For your reference, McCork. I've highlighted the issues you need to address.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
I see what principle you are trying to present. That is why I ask you to be consistent with your principle if you believe it. If you allow Msgr. Fenton to not condemn the minority opinion, then why would you condemn me for it?
I told you (several times now) that I disagree with Fenton. Now answer my question. I'm calling you out on your false principles. If the Church cannot allow or tolerate a false opinion, then how is it that the Church tolerates what is in your view a false opinion that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith and for salvation?
-
BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short
:laugh1:
-
For your reference, McCork. I've highlighted the issues you need to address.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
I see what principle you are trying to present. That is why I ask you to be consistent with your principle if you believe it. If you allow Msgr. Fenton to not condemn the minority opinion, then why would you condemn me for it?
I told you (several times now) that I disagree with Fenton. Now answer my question. I'm calling you out on your false principles. If the Church cannot allow or tolerate a false opinion, then how is it that the Church tolerates what is in your view a false opinion that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith and for salvation?
Actually, I am now trying to find out what you believe. You disagree with Msgr. Fenton but quote him anyway, to prove what? That there was a majority opinion? Yet you condemn the minority opinion as heresy?
-
Still no answer from McCork.
-
Still no answer from McCork.
I had already answered that a while back for which YOU had no answer. I said that there is no historical evidence that anyone was positively excluding implicit belief. This was back when I gave the analogy about the filioque. Anything that is implicit is essentially present, so when someone says something is required to be present, they are NOT excluding the implicit unless they directly and verbatim say so.
-
Still no answer from McCork.
I had already answered that a while back for which YOU had no answer. I said that there is no historical evidence that anyone was positively excluding implicit belief. This was back when I gave the analogy about the filioque. Anything that is implicit is essentially present, so when someone says something is required to be present, they are NOT excluding the implicit unless they directly and verbatim say so.
That wasn't my question.
You're too dense to have any kind of meaningful discussion with.
-
For your reference, McCork. My questions are in bold. try again.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
-
For your reference, McCork. My questions are in bold. try again.
Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed. Clearly one of these is wrong. So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one? If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?
McCork, you're just a babbling idiot. You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.
Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
If you directly applied what I just said, you will see that I am saying St. Thomas did not do what you say he did.
-
For your reference, McCork. My questions are in bold. try again.
I'm afraid its futile. I asked McCork twice in this thread =>
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&f=28&min=685&num=5
...to quote an Early Church Father, Saint or theologian from before year 1500 (excluding heresies like universalism of Origen and Clement of Alexandria) who taught salvation of "invincibly ignorant" through "implicit desire" (whathever that means), of course without response.
I had already answered that a while back for which YOU had no answer. I said that there is no historical evidence that anyone was positively excluding implicit belief. This was back when I gave the analogy about the filioque. Anything that is implicit is essentially present, so when someone says something is required to be present, they are NOT excluding the implicit unless they directly and verbatim say so.
The Church has not formaly condemned a heresy of "once saved, always saved" prior to Trent, because no one believed such a nonsense before. Same with "salvation through implicit desire".
-
For your reference, McCork. My questions are in bold. try again.
I'm afraid its futile.
Little did you know I answered while you were typing your message!
I asked McCork twice in this thread =>
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&f=28&min=685&num=5
...to quote an Early Church Father, Saint or theologian from before year 1500 (excluding heresies like universalism of Origen and Clement of Alexandria) who taught salvation of "invincibly ignorant" through "implicit desire" (whathever that means), of course without response.
Firstly, I don't have to answer anyone I am not having my prime discussion with at the time, because butt-ins cannot expect to be served immediately. Secondly, if you really followed what I have written, you could cull the answer.
I had already answered that a while back for which YOU had no answer. I said that there is no historical evidence that anyone was positively excluding implicit belief. This was back when I gave the analogy about the filioque. Anything that is implicit is essentially present, so when someone says something is required to be present, they are NOT excluding the implicit unless they directly and verbatim say so.
The Church has not formaly condemned a heresy of "once saved, always saved" prior to Trent, because no one believed such a nonsense before. Same with "salvation through implicit desire".
The fact is, Laszlo is asking me a question like, "when did you stop beating your wife", and the answer is it never happened. The question about St. Thomas is the same thing.
-
If you directly applied what I just said, you will see that I am saying St. Thomas did not do what you say he did.
Admit it, McCork; you've been caught with your pants down.
No, what you were claiming before is that when the Church Fathers spoke of belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation they never used the term "explicitly" so as to rule out implicit belief. St. Thomas, using scholastic distinctions, uses the term EXPLICITLY. This rules out your own heretical concept, McCork. Now you must explain how you have the audacity to reject the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and how it is that the Church could have refused to take action against such an error (as you would have it).
Of course, this really is a waste of time, since not even the most dogmatic sedevacantists here on CI, nor even the Dimond brothers, believe in your negative infallibility crap. I'm wasting a lot of time trying to refute your idiocy. So I'm not going to bother anymore. McCork is to be avoided as a pertinacious heretic, a denier of EENS, a Pelagian, and an audacious denier of Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
-
If you directly applied what I just said, you will see that I am saying St. Thomas did not do what you say he did.
Admit it, McCork; you've been caught with your pants down.
No, what you were claiming before is that when the Church Fathers spoke of belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation they never used the term "explicitly" so as to rule out implicit belief. St. Thomas, using scholastic distinctions, uses the term EXPLICITLY. This rules out your own heretical concept, McCork. Now you must explain how you have the audacity to reject the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and how it is that the Church could have refused to take action against such an error (as you would have it).
Of course, this really is a waste of time, since not even the most dogmatic sedevacantists here on CI, nor even the Dimond brothers, believe in your negative infallibility crap. I'm wasting a lot of time trying to refute your idiocy. So I'm not going to bother anymore. McCork is to be avoided as a pertinacious heretic, a denier of EENS, a Pelagian, and an audacious denier of Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation. Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.
You keep talking of "negative infallibility", but I have never used those words. Looking them up, they are not even specifically Catholic terminology. Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.
-
What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.
Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints, has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.
If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.
Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.
Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.
Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?
Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.
What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?
Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.
-
What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.
Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints, has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.
If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.
Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.
Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.
Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?
Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.
What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?
Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.
Go away Desmond, you are just an admitted former rationalist now in Novus Ordo attire, who 6 weeks ago said here thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism. Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you. Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.
-
What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.
Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints, has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.
If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.
Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.
Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.
Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?
Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.
What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?
Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.
Go away Desmond, you are just an admitted former rationalist now in Novus Ordo attire, who 6 weeks ago said here thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism. Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you. Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.
He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.
-
The Church has not formaly condemned a heresy of "once saved, always saved" prior to Trent, because no one believed such a nonsense before. Same with "salvation through implicit desire".
The Protestants via their fiducial faith (or preferably 'once saved, always saved,') at least demand that their converts make an explicit formal recognition of Jesus Christ as God and through which salvation is attained.
While implicit faith, with it's open ended (imprecise) and mere hand waving doesn't even ask for 'conversion,' yet includes Pagans, Jews, ____ (you name it), who themselves would regard as presumptuous if not stupid; that they themselves are somehow an "unconscious Catholic." Yet many of these same people are considered 'good' members of society and if asked, would confirm that they are affirming to do their particular 'God's will,' - that is... on their own terms and through their darkened intellect and disordered reason via the natural circuмstances of not having a participation in the Sacramental life of Catholics.....unless that is, they convert.
-
No, they are clearly not talking about explicit faith in the Holy Trinity as necessary by precept. McCork lies and distorts in order to twist the Catholic faith into his perverted little view of things.
-
The Church has not formaly condemned a heresy of "once saved, always saved" prior to Trent, because no one believed such a nonsense before. Same with "salvation through implicit desire".
The Protestants via their fiducial faith (or preferably 'once saved, always saved,') at least demand that their converts make an explicit formal recognition of Jesus Christ as God and through which salvation is attained.
While implicit faith, with it's open ended (imprecise) and mere hand waving doesn't even ask for 'conversion,' yet includes Pagans, Jews, ____ (you name it), who themselves would regard as presumptuous if not stupid; that they themselves are somehow an "unconscious Catholic." Yet many of these same people are considered 'good' members of society and if asked, would confirm that they are affirming to do their particular 'God's will,' - that is... on their own terms and through their darkened intellect and disordered reason via the natural circuмstances of not having a participation in the Sacramental life of Catholics.....unless that is, they convert.
As much as I respect and enjoy reading Monsignor Van Noort (having his Dogmatic Theology 3 Vol. set)....
Dogmatic Theology Volume II
...men of good faith neatly dubbed by Msgr. Knox "unconscious Catholics." Knox meant men who, though in invincible ignorance of the unique nature of the Catholic Church, are nonetheless related to it by implicit desire and who, if saved, will be saved because of the Church." pg. 256
The average Joe who is lacking knowledge about the Catholic Faith is magically related to it by an implicit desire that by it's very definition states that he is ignorant of his need of said Church (I guess Mother Church scoops him up in Her arms without him knowing).
Dogmatic Theology Volume II
"outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation." The axiom should be strictly understood as referring to actual union with the visible Church; but its full and correct meaning is: anyone who by his own fault lives and dies outside the Church will definitely be damned. pg. 265
...transitions smoothly to Vatican II and Lumen Gentium #14
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Everybody else...fair game to be saved (as long as you don't know or are ignorant; then you can be saved).
-
Everybody else...fair game to be saved (as long as you don't know or are ignorant; then you can be saved).
Yes, this is pure undisguised Pelagianism.
-
Everybody else...fair game to be saved (as long as you don't know or are ignorant; then you can be saved).
Yes, this is pure undisguised Pelagianism.
-
Go away Desmond,
Ok I will stop posting on "your" threads.
you are just an admitted former rationalist
I never admitted to such a thing.
now in Novus Ordo attire,
How am I Novus Ordo? I was baptised as an infant and grew up in the N.O. back then.
who 6 weeks ago said here thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years
Yes.
and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism.
Well at least I have the decency of remaining humble and admitting I might very well be wrong, and give others the benefit of the doubt as far as their personal/favourite flavour of theology being legitimate.
Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you.
Does this mean when I will conform 100% to your own position?
Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.
What are you referring to?
But yes I agree with that. It's useless if not harmful for laymen, often simple souls, like myself to delve deeper and deeper in theologically troubled territory.
I have a few quasi-certainties and I'm very reluctant to doubt them.
Now, if you really cared, could have proposed counter-arguments yourself, quoting from such and such "catholic" book, instead of yet again trying to silence me using distasteful methods.
-
The Protestants via their fiducial faith (or preferably 'once saved, always saved,') at least demand that their converts make an explicit formal recognition of Jesus Christ as God and through which salvation is attained.
Hear hear.
Protestantism (fundamentalism especially) seems to me much more close to truth, due to Biblical literalism and Sola Scriptura, than whatever religion most "catholics" or even "traditionalists" espouse these days.
It's something so far removed from the core tenets (essence) of the Biblical message they might very well discard it entirely.
-
What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.
Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints, has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.
If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.
Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.
Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.
Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?
Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.
What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?
Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.
Go away Desmond, you are just an admitted former rationalist now in Novus Ordo attire, who 6 weeks ago said here thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism. Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you. Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.
He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.
Ah, now you declare all sedes are not Catholic! Not even you pope says that! And you think rejecting Catholic books out of hand is somehow "better"? You are a mental case.
-
Everybody else...fair game to be saved (as long as you don't know or are ignorant; then you can be saved).
Yes, this is pure undisguised Pelagianism.
Cantarella, it is one of YOUR priests who says such things. You willingly belong to a Church where almost all the priests/bishops, and its head, think that, yet you criticize it!
-
Go away Desmond,
Ok I will stop posting on "your" threads.
you are just an admitted former rationalist
I never admitted to such a thing.
Six weeks ago you posted here: "After decades of atheism/agnosticism/idontgiveahootism I've recently come back to "catholicism" (after an inner call of sorts). "
So, are you lying now, or did you lie then??
-
He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.
Ah, now you declare all sedes are not Catholic! Not even you pope says that! And you think rejecting Catholic books out of hand is somehow "better"? You are a mental case.
There has never been a Catholic who says the things you say. Your mission here has been to pit teaching against teaching, saint against saint and saints against popes with your confused theology. FYI, that is not Catholic.
-
He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.
Ah, now you declare all sedes are not Catholic! Not even you pope says that! And you think rejecting Catholic books out of hand is somehow "better"? You are a mental case.
There has never been a Catholic who says the things you say. Your mission here has been to pit teaching against teaching, saint against saint and saints against popes with your confused theology. FYI, that is not Catholic.
Hallucinations often accompany being a mental case.
-
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
This is one heck of a hallucination.
-
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
This is one heck of a hallucination.
I think it is rather that you haven't seen the explanation yet.
For a Catholic, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the Church says it means.
For Protestants, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the individual thinks it mean regardless of the Church says it means.
The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.
Ihssv asked me his own question with an intention and meaning of his own. I know what his intent was, and I answered accordingly with the emphasis on the word "your".
Both you and ihsv, and most Feeneyites, are handling that Scripture like Protestants....private interpretation while disregarding what the Church says it means. Even Ladislaus seems to believe that catechumens can be saved without being physically baptized with water, if they die by accident before the ceremony. Anyway, canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?
-
The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.
Only in your own heresy-addled mind can you claim that the Church has declared that Jesus really meant the exact opposite of what He actually said.
Amen, amen I say to thee, even if a man has not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
-
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
This is one heck of a hallucination.
I think it is rather that you haven't seen the explanation yet.
For a Catholic, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the Church says it means.
For Protestants, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the individual thinks it mean regardless of the Church says it means.
The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.
Ihssv asked me his own question with an intention and meaning of his own. I know what his intent was, and I answered accordingly with the emphasis on the word "your".
Both you and ihsv, and most Feeneyites, are handling that Scripture like Protestants....private interpretation while disregarding what the Church says it means. Even Ladislaus seems to believe that catechumens can be saved without being physically baptized with water, if they die by accident before the ceremony. Anyway, canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?
Our Lord said without water and the Holy Ghost, no one gets to heaven.
The Church (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id94.html) interprets John 3:5 as Trent decrees, " as it is written"; "from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (FYI, a BOD = "metaphorical baptism")
Trent decrees the sacrament is necessary unto salvation.
Trent decrees the sacrament is not optional.
McCork says they are all wrong, that Fr. Feeney is wrong, that I am wrong, that God Himself is wrong because; "yes", certainly a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost."
You've got the millstone securely around your neck, beware of jumping in a lake.
Now you have a book, you say, that agrees with you - which is as I said already - you exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching - you do this by twisting the true teachings and promoting false teachings.
Same o same o.
-
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
This is one heck of a hallucination.
I think it is rather that you haven't seen the explanation yet.
For a Catholic, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the Church says it means.
For Protestants, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the individual thinks it mean regardless of the Church says it means.
The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.
Ihssv asked me his own question with an intention and meaning of his own. I know what his intent was, and I answered accordingly with the emphasis on the word "your".
Both you and ihsv, and most Feeneyites, are handling that Scripture like Protestants....private interpretation while disregarding what the Church says it means. Even Ladislaus seems to believe that catechumens can be saved without being physically baptized with water, if they die by accident before the ceremony. Anyway, canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?
Our Lord said without water and the Holy Ghost, no one gets to heaven.
The Church (http:///id94.html) interprets John 3:5 as Trent decrees, " as it is written"; "from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (FYI, a BOD = "metaphorical baptism")
Trent decrees the sacrament is necessary unto salvation.
Trent decrees the sacrament is not optional.
McCork says they are all wrong, that Fr. Feeney is wrong, that I am wrong, that God Himself is wrong because; "yes", certainly a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost."
You've got the millstone securely around your neck, beware of jumping in a lake.
Now you have a book, you say, that agrees with you - which is as I said already - you exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching - you do this by twisting the true teachings and promoting false teachings.
Same o same o.
"canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?"
-
Bottom Line:
BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
-
Bottom Line:
BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Again, the fallacy here is an "Oversimplification" of the topic, a very "Hasty Generalization".
The truth of the matter is clearly taught by the Church:
174. "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice."
"...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."
-
The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.
Only in your own heresy-addled mind can you claim that the Church has declared that Jesus really meant the exact opposite of what He actually said.
Amen, amen I say to thee, even if a man has not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
Are you trying to say that all dead catechumens were physically baptized with water?
-
Now you have a book, you say, that agrees with you - which is as I said already - you exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching - you do this by twisting the true teachings and promoting false teachings.
Same o same o.
"canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?"
Why do you care what canon law says? - you who explicitly reject the words of Our Lord. You exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
-
Now you have a book, you say, that agrees with you - which is as I said already - you exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching - you do this by twisting the true teachings and promoting false teachings.
Same o same o.
"canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?"
Why do you care what canon law says? - you who explicitly reject the words of Our Lord. You exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
Here you dishonestly changed my emphasis on the word "your" when quoting me, right after I clearly explained it.
I am asking you, how YOU care about canon law. Do you think canon law was heretical for requiring priests to say Requiem Masses for dead catechumens who didn't receive the physical water of baptism?
-
As long as you have the infallible teaching of Trent and the infallible words of Our Lord, BOTH teaching infallibility, (that means without the slightest possibility of error, which means those words are binding on all Catholics under pain of Mortal Sin) that without the sacrament, no one will enter heaven - whatever anything or anyone says that does not agree 100%, is either erroneous or irrelevant.
True or false means nothing to you, all you do is keep searching till you find something fallible which suits your opinion, then you push the fallible teaching as the truth, while proclaiming the infallible teaching does not mean what it says - and whoever binds themselves to the infallible teachings are in error or are heretics. You then pit fallible teaching against infallible teaching - as if that changes the infallible teachings. What Church taught you to do this?
I am positive you can cease doing this if you give it your best effort to accept the infallible words of Our Lord and the infallible decrees of Trent as they are written from now on.
-
Bottom Line:
BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.
Again, the fallacy here is an "Oversimplification" of the topic, a very "Hasty Generalization".
The truth of the matter is clearly taught by the Church:
174. "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice."
"...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."
What I wrote is what the two sides believe, whether you like it or not, it is the naked truth. A BODer post those two (imprecise) quotes like you did, and Feeneyites post ten dogmatic decrees (which are quite clear, if language means anything). But the bottom line is that they both believe what I wrote, it is undeniable.
-
As long as you have the infallible teaching of Trent and the infallible words of Our Lord, BOTH teaching infallibility, (that means without the slightest possibility of error, which means those words are binding on all Catholics under pain of Mortal Sin) that without the sacrament, no one will enter heaven - whatever anything or anyone says that does not agree 100%, is either erroneous or irrelevant.
True or false means nothing to you, all you do is keep searching till you find something fallible which suits your opinion, then you push the fallible teaching as the truth, while proclaiming the infallible teaching does not mean what it says - and whoever binds themselves to the infallible teachings are in error or are heretics. You then pit fallible teaching against infallible teaching - as if that changes the infallible teachings. What Church taught you to do this?
I am positive you can cease doing this if you give it your best effort to accept the infallible words of Our Lord and the infallible decrees of Trent as they are written from now on.
I have long known what you believe. I am asking you a question so that you can apply what you believe.
-
Preview of 2017 model of:
BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short (as I read it on cathinfo)
BODers - believes that a “good” Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Eastern Orthodox as an Eastern Orthodox, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, Buddhist as a Buddhist etc., etc., etc., can be in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and obtain salvation.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Eastern Orthodox as an Eastern Orthodox, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, Buddhist as a Buddhist etc., etc., etc., can be in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and obtain salvation.
-
Preview of 2017 model of:
BODer vs. Feeneyite Debate in Short (as I read it on cathinfo)
BODers - believes that a “good” Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Eastern Orthodox as an Eastern Orthodox, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, Buddhist as a Buddhist etc., etc., etc., can be in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and obtain salvation.
Feeneyites – Do not believe that Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Eastern Orthodox as an Eastern Orthodox, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, Buddhist as a Buddhist etc., etc., etc., can be in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and obtain salvation.
Just for the record, BODers believe that since Jesus Christ died for ALL Mankind, it is possible through the grace of God, that any person can convert at their last moment to the One Holy Catholic Faith, be it unknown to man, but known to God. Therefore placing them when they stand before God in His favor.
How many, how few, no one really knows, it is God who knows and I realize it is difficult for people who put Feeneyites above the Mercy of God to understand this point, it is never the less a point to consider.
Strange too, how many who hold to erroneous beliefs of EENS, will still regard Francis as a true pope when he is the worse offender of the abuse of EENS. This alone proves how twisted their thinking is. Not saying you Last Tradhican are guilty of claiming whatever about Francis since I have not read enough here of what you believe or do not believe about the Conciliar "popes" if they are Catholic or not.