Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 37

Author Topic: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans  (Read 12535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #115 on: August 08, 2019, 01:21:51 PM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:14:03 PM
The only thing that I'm not clear on is the idea that its "heresy" to apply BOD to "anyone who isn't a formal, public catechumen".  That's the thing that hasn't been adequetely demonstrated to me yet, and I think some people here are elevating their own, understandable but nevertheless definitely questionable, reading of old church docuŠ¼ents as though it was equivalent to an actual rebuke by the Church.

That is because it's the constant teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  So, for 1600 years, not a single Catholic anywhere taught or believed otherwise, and yet a Jesuit comes along in 1600 rejecting this teaching, and suddenly it's open for questioning?  So something taught infallibly by the OUM and the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers suddenly becomes no longer infallibly taught because a handful of innovators began to question it?  Nonsense.  While this has NOT been explicitly condemned by the Church since that time, it's objectively heretical without a doubt.  And the greatest mistake (by omission) ever made in the history of the Church has been the failure to explicitly condemn this error.  This omission is what ultimately led to Vatican II.  Father Feeney was the only one who saw and predicted where it was going even before Vatican II happened.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #116 on: August 08, 2019, 01:24:41 PM »
Quote
Trent requires the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof.
Someone posted a while back that the translation from latin to English was wrong and that Trent said "and" and not "or".  In other words, to receive baptism one must receive the sacrament AND have the desire to.  This totally changes the meaning and destroys BOD.  Can anyone confirm?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #117 on: August 08, 2019, 01:26:08 PM »
Quote from: Struthio on August 08, 2019, 01:18:55 PM
You mistake Fr. Feeney for Trent.

Trent teaches that noone is saved without a sacrament.
Trent teaches that there is no baptism without water.
Trent teaches that you need the laver of regeneration as well as the desire for it.

It is intellectual dishonesty to say that Trent mentions BoD. Trent requires the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof.

The statement "Noone can write a thesis on rocket science without a pen or a pencil" does neither imply

- that folks with a pen can write a thesis on rocket science
- that folks with a pencil can write a thesis on rocket science
- that folks with a pencil and a pen can write a thesis on rocket science

To be able to write a thesis on rocket science, much more than pen and/or pencil is needed.

The Council of Trent explains in detail what is needed. You just have to read the whole Decree on Justification (spoiler: water, the sacrament of baptism, as well as desire thereof are included).

Right.  I don't believe that Trent teaches it either.  Trent teaches the desire for Baptism to be a necessary but not a sufficient cause of justification.  But it's ALSO true that Trent makes no mention of salvation, but only of justification.  Trent later explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation.
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #118 on: August 08, 2019, 01:30:42 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:21:51 PM
That is because it's the constant teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  So, for 1600 years, not a single Catholic anywhere taught or believed otherwise, and yet a Jesuit comes along in 1600 rejecting this teaching, and suddenly it's open for questioning?  So something taught infallibly by the OUM and the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers suddenly becomes no longer infallibly taught because a handful of innovators began to question it?  Nonsense.  While this has NOT been explicitly condemned by the Church since that time, it's objectively heretical without a doubt.  And the greatest mistake (by omission) ever made in the history of the Church has been the failure to explicitly condemn this error.  This omission is what ultimately led to Vatican II.  Father Feeney was the only one who saw and predicted where it was going even before Vatican II happened.
If its really the case that every single Catholic taught this for 1600 years, then I'd agree that that conclusion follows.  That seems like a much clearer argument than simply citing the dogmatic definitions (for reasons I've pointed out previously.) 

Furthermore, I'm not even sure Vatican II demands you to conclude otherwise, even if you hold to it.  It certainly allows for it, but its possible to read Vatican II in a way that doesn't come to that conclusion I think.

The only two pieces of data that come to my mind that could be used to argue against you, and I'm by no means an expert and will need to do more research, but is, I believe Justin Martyr suggests the salvation of Socrates in First Apology, and Augustine suggests in Letter 43 that someone who was born a Donatist, and is sincerely seeking the truth, ought not to be regarded as a heretic.  Neither point, however, is a perfect refutation of you, because the first one deals with the Old Covenant situation.  The second one deals with a Donatist, who believes in the Holy Trinity, however I don't see why he wouldn't be in a comparable position to an EO or a Protestant (and if I understand correctly, Feeneyites would ALSO say its heretical to say that anyone who identifies as Protestant or Eastern Orthodox could be saved.)  

Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #119 on: August 08, 2019, 01:33:39 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on August 08, 2019, 01:05:35 PM
It is my opinion that they did this on purpose, whether due to ignorance or malice I cannot guess, but certainly it's not something in there by accident. This forum alone proves it is a teaching that contradicts Scripture, tradition and infallible dogma.

The prot's logic has it's foundation in "Christ did everything, we only need to accept Him as our Savior to be saved." Whereas we Catholics must be told by the Church what we must do in order to be saved, which the prots wholly, some vehemently, reject. So I do not get the connection you are trying to make.

Being that there is only one baptism, and being that Our Lord specifically made the matter water, and He specifically made the form "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and since the recipient must desire to receive that one baptism in this manner, if there were any other possible way to receive that baptism, we do not know of it, as such, any other method would only be speculation.  

Also of interest is the fact that the only ones who promote a BOD, are already baptized. You will never hear an unbaptized person promote it - never.
You're missing his point. The Bible says there is one mediator, Christ. However the also Church says Mary is also mediatrix. Church teaching cannot contradict the Bible, so someone could say that the Church calling Mary mediatrix creates two mediators, and that therefore the teaching is false since the Bible says there is just one. They would be wrong however, because the Church makes a finer distinction between what mediator means for Christ and what it means for Mary.

His point is that the same logic could be applied to BOD. Declaring BOD as false because it appears to propose more than one baptism is the same as declaring that the teaching that Mary is mediatrix is false because it appears to propose more than one mediator. His point is that the apparent contradiction between BOD and one baptism could be resolved by finer distinction in the same way the mediator problem is resolved.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 37
« previous next »