Author Topic: CI BODer Manifesto (Read 7513 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:36:47 PM »

In your heretical hubris, you demand that we give the assent of faith to theology manuals making gratuitous assertions in the early 1900s but then reject the bishops of the world teaching in unison at Vatican II. If ANYONE expresses Ordinary Universal Magisterium it's the bishops of the world teaching something unanimously to the Church, and not the modernist theologians of the early 1900s. But it's OK for you to declare every one of these bishops apostate while you claim that we're heretical for rejecting these modernist theologians when even St. Pius X said that the Church had been infected beyond repair (humanly speaking) with modernism in his day. Yet you arrogantly pretend that the entire world was orthodox until 1962 and then magically apostatized in one day. You are hypocrites and (heretics and/or schismatics).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:38:16 PM »

And you spend all your energies trying to undermine EENS and serve no purpose other than to perpetuate the logical foment that created the apostasy of our day.

Had St. Pius X stood up and condemned BoD for anyone except catechumens and those who consciously embraced the Catholic Faith, then Vatican II could never have happened, since the heresy would have been pre-condemned.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:39:37 PM »

My upholding a strict interpretation of EENS does absolutely no harm in the practical order. If anything, it underscores the necessity and urgency to convert. Your constant undermining of EENS promotes religious indifferentism and the very decay of faith in the apostasy of the end times.

You are serving Lucifer and not God. You are anathema.

Sigismund · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2014, 08:02:43 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Manifest rubbish from beginning to end.

Quote
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (1910)

So do you admit that Pope St. Pius X is against you and condemns your position?

You don't understand what these texts are saying - the orthodox ones such as the Catechism (I can't vouch for the orthodoxy of some of the others, such as that in your first post) are saying these persons are currently outside the Church, but will be united to the Church and incorporated inside Her before they die.

Here is another text, perhaps you will misconstrue and misquote this one as well in future.

Quote from: Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR,1888
“Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine]
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.

Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

A. Eternal damnation.

As always, wise words from Nishant.

And it is nice to see a post from you again.

Cantarella · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2014, 08:27:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

My upholding a strict interpretation of EENS does absolutely no harm in the practical order. If anything, it underscores the necessity and urgency to convert. Your constant undermining of EENS promotes religious indifferentism and the very decay of faith in the apostasy of the end times.

You are serving Lucifer and not God. You are anathema.

You are my new favorite poster, Ladislaus :smile:. Not enough kuddos for you! These people are suffering from the same diabolical disorientation they condemn, as it had happened overnight, after Vatican II. They have no real clue or understanding of how the true enemies of the Church have operated from within, in the big scheme of things. They are pitiful naive!

May God preserve you, Ladislaus and all defenders of the only true Faith and its salutary dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which is to be taken literally with zero loopholes.

bowler · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:25:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nishant
Quote
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (1910)

So do you admit that Pope St. Pius X is against you and condemns your position?

That catechism is only attributed to St. Pius X, not authored by him.

....

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:26:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

My upholding a strict interpretation of EENS does absolutely no harm in the practical order. If anything, it underscores the necessity and urgency to convert. Your constant undermining of EENS promotes religious indifferentism and the very decay of faith in the apostasy of the end times.

You are serving Lucifer and not God. You are anathema.

You are right Ladislaus . The arrogance of these people is mind boggling. They pretend to know what they are talking about, yet have no clue. The result of their arrogance is heresy.

bowler · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:27:52 PM »

Everyone that has any quotes from catechisms that teach salvation for those who have no explicit desire to be baptized, or Catholic, or belief in Christ, can post those quotes here. I'll be adding other quotes all prior to Vatican II.

bowler · « **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:37:46 PM »

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Church,” 1908, G. H. Joyce:

“The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation)… It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition…Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy… Thus, even in the case in which God saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s actual graces… In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body.”

bowler · « **Reply #24 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:39:36 PM »

Radio Replies Volume 3

179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of serious violations of conscience, during life.

Radio Replies – Volume 2:

722. Does Catholic doctrine allow that the soul of an unbaptized heathen can enter heaven?
Not in the case of unbaptized infants who die before coming to the use of reason and the stage of personal responsibility. The heathens who do come to the age of personal responsibility can attain to the supernatural order of grace and inherit that very heaven for which baptism is normally required on certain conditions. For example, a pagan may never have heard of the Gospel, or having heard of it, may have quite failed to grasp its significance. He remains a heathen, knowing no better, and dies without receiving the actual Sacrament of Baptism. In such a case God will not blame him for that for which he is really not responsible. At the same time, God wills all men to be saved, and will certainly give that heathen sufficient grace for his salvation according to the condition in which he is. If that heathen, under the influence of interior promptings of conscience and the actual inspirations of grace given by God, repents sincerely before death of such moral lapses as he has committed during life, he will secure forgiveness, and save his soul in view of the Baptism he would have been willing to receive had he known it to be necessary, and could he have done so. We Catholics say that such a heathen has been saved by Baptism of Desire. The desire, of course, is implicit only.

bowler · « **Reply #25 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:45:17 PM »

Quote from: bowler

The SSPX, CMRI, Abp. Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and all trad priest ordained in SSPX seniaries ALL formally teach that anyone can be saved in any false religion, therefore, they would be hypocrites for criticizing the same "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II.

Quote
Ladislaus said:
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally.[/b] Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.

If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.

You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).

Man of the West · « **Reply #26 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:01:37 PM »

Quote

Had St. Pius X stood up and condemned BoD for anyone except catechumens and those who consciously embraced the Catholic Faith, then Vatican II could never have happened, since the heresy would have been pre-condemned.

Now you have finally done it to yourself, Ladislaus. You have condemned yourself with the words of your own mouth.

You cannot limit Baptism of Desire to "catechumens and those who consciously embrace the Catholic faith," for two reasons.

1) If water Baptism is strictly necessary in every case, then there are no exceptions to it at all. No loopholes! - as Cantarella has said after you.

2) There is no perfect way to decide who a catechumen is, and there is especially no way to decide who exactly has consciously embraced the Catholic faith. All this does is shift the question one step further back. Instead of asking "And who is Baptized?" we now must ask "And who has consciously embrace the faith?" Could it not be that God gives to certain virtuous pagans and Protestants in their last agony the chance to consciously embrace the faith? That's all that BoD-ers are defending! You've just endorsed our whole position.

St. Pius X could not have condemned the "heresy" you speak of because it is not a heresy at all. It would have made the faith untenable. He was prevented not only by infallibility but also by good sense from doing what you wish he would have done. Furthermore, the idea of pre-condemning an unmooted heresy is a little strange. That is not what popes do. They do not speculate on every heresy that might arise; they condemn error when it does arise.

But in the nature of the case, Baptism of Desire has been explicitly taught as doctrine by the Catholic Church since at least the Council of Trent. Is it really possible that all those tracts and books and catechisms carrying episcopal imprimaturs got it wrong? Is it really possible that nobody in the 400 years between Trent and Fr. Feeney noticed that this horrendous error was spreading, and moved to stop it? Of course not, because there is no error here.

I am begging you to reconsider your position. This isn't doing you or anybody else any good. And don't say "But it does no harm in the practical order," as you said above. These divisions needlessly weaken the Church in a time of crisis and the adherence to nonsensical doctrine makes Catholicism look ridiculous. Please stop it now. Repudiate this madness and distance yourself from your less articulate hangers-on (one of whom, I see, has been quite busy in the time I took to write this). Your education I'm sure would be greatly valued in the service of truth.

If you want to talk to somebody privately I'm sure none of the regulars here would spurn a PM, nor would I.

Cantarella · « **Reply #27 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:45:41 PM »

Quote from: Man of the West

1) If water Baptism is strictly necessary in every case, then there are no exceptions to it at all. No loopholes! - as Cantarella has said after you.

Better to leave it like that since it is the way Our Lord Himself clearly instituted it. No exceptions to the command revealed by God. It is why Holy Mother Church in Her Infinite God-Given Wisdom has NEVER defined Baptism of Desire as infallible dogma. The Church has always taught that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word. John 3:5 is to be taken literally.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #28 on:** March 13, 2014, 11:22:43 PM »

Scripture Annotation for The Gospel of Saint John, Chapter 3...

Cantarella · « **Reply #29 on:** March 14, 2014, 02:32:52 AM »

Quote from: Man of the West

Could it not be that God gives to certain virtuous pagans and Protestants in their last agony the chance to consciously embrace the faith? That's all that BoD-ers are defending!

Sorry Man of the West, but we do not profess the Faith of ambiguity. We belong to the only salvific Church of absolute Truth which is DIVINE revealed, cannot change, or be contradicted, colored, altered, etc. Here you find the infallible teaching on the formula of EENS:

THE INFALLIBLE DOGMA OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

[]"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441). [/i]

There is NO place for ambiguity in these dogmatic declarations. These are de fide declarations of Faith that were guided by the Holy Ghost, who is unchangeable. These dogmatic statements rule out the possibility of simple invincible ignorance concerning the matter of salvation; those who die in ignorance of the Faith are souls of bad will, reprobate, and are guilty of at least Original Sin only, which in itself suffices for damnation.