They fail to distinguish between a widespread prevailing opinion and an official universal teaching of the Church that something has been revealed.

Gregory I cited one of my favorite examples, St. Augustine's position that was universally held for about 800 years until it was questioned by Abelard (the same Abelard who rejected BoD).  And the Church eventually sided with Abelard, putting to rest the false Augustinian position.  This was an example of a widespread opinion that was wrong.

Plus, the dogmatic Cushingite heretics lie in claiming that BoD has been held universally and without dispute for the entire history of the Church.  In point of fact, only ONE Church Father temporarily entertained the notion of BoD, and he ended up retracting the opinion before he died.  MANY Church Fathers explicitly rejected BoD.  Then not a peep about this matter for about 800 years.  At the pre-scholastic Augustinian revival, the question became re-examined and was disputed, with one very influential author siding tentatively in favor of BoD.  And then St. Thomas went with it.  Once St. Thomas went with it, it went viral as it were due to the reverence people had for him.  So this is the reality, but they lie through their heretical teeth in claiming that this was some universal truth always taught by the Church.

Also, they fail to state that ALL of the even quasi-official references to BoD have been in references to CATECHUMENS.  And they care nothing for these catechumens.  They are trying to reject and undermine EENS to push their agenda that any manner of non-Catholic can be saved.

bosco and Bumphrey are heretically depraved scuм who despise the dogma EENS, who promote Pelagianism at every turn, who have embraced a heretical Protestant (and Vatican II) ecclesiology, and who reject Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.  And then these heretics have the hubris and temerity to accuse those of us of heresy who do not share a speculative (albeit admittedly widespread) opinion regarding the possibility of salvation via BoD.  They are diabolical and Satanic.  For them the dogma EENS means the opposite of what it actually say, and you are a heretic if you don't believe the opposite of EENS; inversions like this are the truest sign of diabolical activity.

Again you post your opinion without citing sources. What you just posted here is full of errors, and meant to be a diversion from the main question in the original post. The fact remains that infallibility of the Church is a DOGMA that states the Catholic Church cannot teach error, and all Catholics must believe the dogma. The Feeneyites fight to the death to defend the EENS dogma, but look the other way for this dogma.

If bod/bob is a heresy as so many in this forum have been arguing, where is the condemnation from the Church? There is none!

Your example on St. Augustine is again, posted in your own words with no proof. Cite your source. Second, if St. Augustine was teaching something heretically, the dogma of infallibility AGAIN guarantees he would be corrected. Though we all know he wasn't a heretic since he was canonized and made a Doctor of the Church.

If he held an opinion that did not affect the teaching of the Church, there is no reason for us to talk about it here since it doesn't affect the dogma in question.

Another point to be made is that something as important as baptism does not allow for opinions - if someone teaches there are exceptions to the Sacrament and that were not really the case, it would be heresy and then we have the guarantee the Church would condemn it.

And whether the teaching on bod/bob is universal or not is irrelevant to this thread. These doctrines are either heresy or they are not. If they are, then the question in the original post stands - how could the Church have allowed them since the days of the Church fathers when the dogma guarantees otherwise?

Nice try at a diversion there Ladi. Anyone else?  







Again, these doctrines of BoD and BoB are not formally heretical because they have not been condemned as such. They are something much more difficult for the polarized mind to grasp- they are erroneous. Just as infants in hellfire was erroneous. Just as St. Bernard, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and practically the entire Dominican order were erroneous until 1854 when the immaculate conception was defined. Just as the Irish Controversial Catechism was erroneous until 1871 when Papal Infallibility was defined. Just as those who denied the Assumption as a revealed truth were erroneous until 1950.

Until a formal condemnation of heresy, holding an opposite opinion is not even materially heretical, because material heresy is to guiltlessly hold a heretical opinion, which again is not heretical until condemned as such or which plainly goes against the most basic and fundamental aspects of faith like the Incarnation or Trinity.

So to say that today there are erroneous strains of thought in the Church is certainly not erroneous, but certainly factual. We still haven't figured out which understanding of Predestination is the best one, though I would say congruism has obtained a slight lead over Thomism. We still have not formally repealed the condemnation of Heliocentrism, which condemnation was in effect until the 19th century.

And we say that BoD at least as understood as a green light for the salvation of total ignoramuses who die as such or the undermining of the absolute necessity of baptism as a necessity of means along with faith in Christ and the Trinity also as necessary by a necessity of means is erroneous.

You created this out of thin air. Your claim that until a formal condemnation of heresy exists, that an opposite opinion can be held, is absolutely false. We know this for a fact because Arius was considered a heretic before his condemnation and before there were any General Councils held in the Church. Nestorius was also considered a heretic before his condemnation. Many other examples can be given.

In the year 319, how could they have condemned Arius for his "opinion" on the Divinity of Christ if there was no formal declaration of heresy against such an opinion? According to you he was safe in teaching his opinion, yet they condemned him as a heretic just 6 years later. How? We can look at this quote from a book on the life of Arius which states he was teaching contrary to Scripture and to "continuous Christian teaching" (the ordinary magisterium):

Orations of Saint Athanasius against the Arians (1873):

Page XI-XII: "There were many letters to be written in defense of the doctrine denied by Arius, and in order to expose his real meaning: the most important of these, the 'Encyclical,' has been assigned, on internal evidence, to the hand of Athanasius, now, apparently, Archdeacon of Alexandria. Adjusting itself to all Christian prelates, the letter insisted that the propositions of Arius were at variance alike with Scripture and with continuous Christian teaching: and in one sentence, eminently 'Athanasian,' called on its readers to 'hold aloof, as Christians, from those who spoke or thought in opposition to Christ.' Athanasius was among the 44 deacons who, with 36 priests, signed this letter, as they had signed the earlier one..."

How could all of the bishops and priests of that time be absolutely certain they were right in condemning Arius? It's called the DOGMA OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. Up to the year 319, there was not yet any General Councils, and the Church taught one meaning on the Divinity of Christ, and because the Church cannot err, they KNEW teaching contrary to the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium) was most certainly heresy, so they condemned him as a heretic.

This example goes to show that NO ONE has the right to preach heretical doctrines contrary to what has always been taught, even if something has not been officially declared heretical. Catholics just need to look at what has been always taught, and if there has been no condemnation, we know it is true because the DOGMA I am speaking about guarantees it so.

I'd be interested to know 1) what "Church" is it that you are a member of. I'd also like to know 2) where you got that quote from in the OP. And I would also like to know 3) *exactly* what is so "very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her" of preaching the literal meaning of the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation?

Three questions that will remain a mystery until boscoe decides to cut his own throat by giving clear answers to the above clear questions.

Obviously another heretical CMRIte.

There you go again blogging and talking AT us. You really should look hard at yourself Laszlo Szijarto (your offered that in your first post here). You really don't plan on ever having a complete discussion. It's all potshots, insults, and running away, engage for a moment, repeat yourself, potshots, insults, and run, etc.  You cannot have a full discussion as we are actually trying to have, because you are insecure in your position. There are so many holes in what you say, it is like Swiss cheese.

There you go again blogging and talking AT us. You really should look hard at yourself Laszlo Szijarto (your offered that in your first post here). You really don't plan on ever having a complete discussion. It's all potshots, insults, and running away, engage for a moment, repeat yourself, potshots, insults, and run, etc.  You cannot have a full discussion as we are actually trying to have, because you are insecure in your position. There are so many holes in what you say, it is like Swiss cheese.