Author Topic: CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics (Read 8515 times)

SJB · « **Reply #75 on:** August 15, 2013, 02:59:26 PM »

This all hinges on the question of membership in the Church being an absolute requirement for salvation. A man who isn't incorporated as a member (by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism) cannot be referred to as a Member of the Catholic Church. So what does one call him who is NOT a member, yet is the topic of the entire discussion?

The idea of calling this person "outside the Church" refers to a lack of being a member, especially when the rest of the discussion reaffirms the essentials of supernatural Faith and perfect Charity. The term is unfortunate, IMO.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #76 on:** August 15, 2013, 03:28:10 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: jozeftiso1947
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
The intention was not to smear.

I find it shocking that a traditional priest would consider salvation for a non-Catholic a possibility.

He was caught off guard by an anonymous caller throwing some complex questions at him. He told the caller that he would send statements by the theologians to explain it. That wasn't good enough, if Peter had said ok, let me learn from the theologians, that would be too easy, and would not have the effect of destroying the reputation of this priest.

I know this priest and I know that he believes the teaching of the Church including "no salvation outside the Church." This from the CMRI website: http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml

If it were me I would have hung up the phone.

How can you say the priest believes in no salvation outside the church when he clearly indicates that Jєωs who deny Christ COULD be saved? Did you even listen to the audio? And since when are Catholics bound to follow theologians? The majority of "theologians" like John Hardon embraced and defended the Vatican 2 heresies, so why don't you follow them?

Because I do not rely on gotcha calls! Maybe you did not read all of the posts on here, but I stated that I know this priest and I know he believes the dogma, " no salvation outside the Church."

It is arrogance to dismiss the theologians as if you know better! When there is a consensus among the theologians, it is a certain doctrine. To profess a proposition against the common teaching of the theologians may be a mortal sin, that of temerity.

In the case of Baptism of Desire, it is not only temerity to deny it but heresy as it was taught by the Council of Trent.

By your standard, Ambrose, anyone who thinks the earth
revolves around the sun commits a mortal sin of temerity.

Since the middle ages there has been a great glut of
challenges to what theologians have written pulling one
way or another on a lot of issues, for example, whether
or not the earth moves around the sun. The consensus
among theologians before the 16th century was that it
does not, to the effect that Galileo was called to task
and required not only once but twice over a period of
20 years, to abjure his error lest he be convicted of
heresy. Why would the Church do that if it were not
true? And it stands so even today, unchanged, yet
you'd be hard pressed to find any theologians today who
have any problem with the heretical doctrine that Galileo
was required to abjure.

The problem is, the Church of today, in her HEAD (the
pope) has effectively abjured the very principle of
definition. Ever since October 11th, 1962, it has
become the official heresy, "outside of which there
is no salvation": NO MORE DEFINITIONS!

It's much more DESIRABLE to just get along with other
religions, and to promote their free expression thereof.
Who needs a sacrament when you have the "desire?"

The problem with someone, including a priest, saying
that he believes in EENS is, that for the past 100 or more
years, (as a direct consequence of the nefarious Galileo
debacle), we have had volumes of sophistries cranked
out that take it to pieces and raise all manner of questions
about what it really means. So you could be talking to a
priest who says he believes in EENS, but, for
example, he thinks that a non-believer can be "inside the
Church" by way of his connection to the "soul" of the
Church, through some implicit desire for a vague good,
even though he is "invincibly ignorant" of any Church
dogmas. -- OR WHATEVER. The point is there is no
shortage of the number of theologians that he can pull off
the shelf to make his case for any manner of nuanced
denial of the simple dogma itself, that outside the Church
there is no salvation, AS DEFINED DOGMATICALLY no less
than three times, each of which got more and more
specific, to address the continued theological assaults
against it.

There have been so many micro-slices of EENS that by the
multiplicity of them the overall effect is to render the dogma
useless. They would be more honest to say they believe in
extra ecclesiam nulla salus sed etcetera, "EENSSE."

But, since liberals don't like to define anything, they would
never admit that "EENSSE" is what they have in mind.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #77 on:** August 15, 2013, 04:02:25 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Mabel
The SSPV argument is not that CMRI are Old Catholics. It is that they don't think Archbishop Thuc was in his right mind in order to have the intent to confect sacraments.

That's simply not true. I know most of the SSPV priests very well. They believe that the CMRI are contaminated with their historic links to Old Catholicism and that the organization itself would have to be disbanded, reformed, and that all current CMRI members would have to formally abjure their schismatic association. It's not JUST about the validity of their orders. They would not give someone who attends a CMRI chapel the sacraments based on that alone.

I've never read or heard their argument presented in terms of the Old Catholics, just the Thuc issue alone. I didn't realize they felt further stipulations beyond holy orders were required. Have they published their recommendations? Secondly, have they investigated the situation and interviewed each priest to evaluate whether they are individually culpable of schism? To whom would they even make an abjuration, they would only be required to do so before the Church. I don't think most of them were guilty of schism, as I understand the history of the group and the families involved very well.

I truly feel sorry for the clergy of the SSPV, and I hope that they are just ignorantly following their cult leader. It is a serious thing for a priest to deny communion to Catholics. The bottom line is that Kelly doesn't want any other act in town, he wants to be the total seat of power in traditionalism. Even if the CMRI met his demands, he would probably find another problem and drive his group further away from unity amongst Catholics. What worries me more is that those under him, who know he is wrong or refuse to understand the matter themselves, what kind of men can they be if they see souls treated unjustly, the laws of the Church twisted and broken-- and then do nothing but continue such a policy.

This is a very interesting discussion, and I hope the thread
can avoid losing this topic, as it is very much what the
OP is all about, and the thread title,

«CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics»

Ambrose · « **Reply #78 on:** August 15, 2013, 04:18:55 PM »

Neil Obstat wrote:

Quote

By your standard, Ambrose, anyone who thinks the earth revolves around the sun commits a mortal sin of temerity

These are not my standards, but those of the Church.

If you want to talk about the Galileo affair and geocentrism, that is a different issue and would need to be talked about separately.

Quote

you'd be hard pressed to find any theologians today who have any problem with the heretical doctrine that Galileo was required to abjure.

Maybe there is some confusion here. When I say "theologian," I am talking about Catholic theologians, not theologians of the Conciliar church.

Quote

So you could be talking to a priest who says he believes in EENS, but, for example, he thinks that a non-believer can be "inside the Church, through some implicit desire for a vague good, even though he is "invincibly ignorant" of any Church dogmas. -- OR WHATEVER.

Neil,

Are you ready to make a judgment against this priest that he is a heretic based on a brief phone call that obviously caught him off guard?

I am not worried about this priest, as I know that he submits to the magisterium. The Holy See tolerated opinions by some that held that an implicit desire for baptism would suffice. Books were published during the twentieth century which taught this. The books were not condemned and placed on the index, they bore an imprimatur, and the writers were not censured. Archbishop Lefebvre even taught this.

Are you greater than the Holy See, Neil?

SJB · « **Reply #79 on:** August 16, 2013, 01:17:14 PM »

Quote from: Baltimore Catechism

*121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to
be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will
not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts
whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must
settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he
continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true
Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he
professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the
truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that
the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has
never--even in the past--had the slightest doubt of that fact--what will
become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be
saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was
doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the
dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his
salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed
remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin
be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does
not go to confession; and if he does, his minister--not being a true
priest--has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without
confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal
sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is
often only imperfect contrition--that is, sorrow for our sins because we
fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a
Catholic--with all the instruction he has received about how to make an
act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such
acts--might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after
having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant
have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about
this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of
perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not
know of this necessary means of regaining God's friendship, or he would
be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus
the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of
God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after
Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his
religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a
member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of
God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would
attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to
be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the
case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All
infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no
matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who
are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny
its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful
pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a
person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his
religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a
mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say
for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church,
believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by
its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely
difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His
holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good
Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.