Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: pax

I mean, somebody has to live under the worst Pope ever, just like somebody has to live under the best Pope ever.

So what are the rules when living under the worst pope ever Pax?

Good question.

Follow the true Catholic Faith to the best of your ability, I guess.

Excellent- I completely agree.

But here is one thing you can hold to with moral certainty: No matter how bad a Captain is steering the Ark, if you jump off the Ark you most certainly will perish in the deluge.

So, hold to the Faith as best you know it and stay on the Ark.

Or if, like on the titanic, if the Ark were already sinking, I would try to get onto a life boat as quickly as I could  :wink:

Or if, like on the titanic, if the Ark were already sinking, I would try to get onto a life boat as quickly as I could  :wink:

Problem is, it is impossible for the Ark to ever sink for it is held afloat by the positive will of Allmighty God.

Or do you not know the difference between the Ark and the Titanic?

BOD is irrelevant.

I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.

Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.

Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven


Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.


Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.

See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.

I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.

So, while I never consider someone to be espousing heretical teachings by claiming there is such a thing as BOD, I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.

Quote from: gunfighter

BOD is irrelevant.

I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.

Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.

Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven


Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.


Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.

See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.

I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.

So, while I never consider someone to be espousing heretical teachings by claiming there is such a thing as BOD, I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.

You are also missing the point that their is not a definitive statement defining BOD.  Given that it is taught in the catechism, if it were heretical, the Church would have addressed it.  It would not suffice to have one sentence in a relatively obscure docuмent address the question.

Quote from: pax

Quote from: gunfighter

BOD is irrelevant.

I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.

Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.

Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven


Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.


Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.

See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.

I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.

So, while I never consider someone to be espousing heretical teachings by claiming there is such a thing as BOD, I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.

You are also missing the point that their is not a definitive statement defining BOD.  Given that it is taught in the catechism, if it were heretical, the Church would have addressed it.  It would not suffice to have one sentence in a relatively obscure docuмent address the question.

Nonetheless, the matter is also treated by some Fathers, Bl. Pope Pius IX, and the Council of Trent -- all of them admitting its possibility, all of them maintaining that the dogma of EENS cannot be circuмvented. Pope Saint Pius X in his catechism (not infallible as he was not yet Pope) spoke of the person being incorporated into the soul of Church (the soul of the Church being the Holy Ghost).

But, why do you even consider BOD when it is forbidden to inquire into whom it may have been applied? BOD is known to exist on the sole basis that we cannot limit the mercy of God. But to bring up the subject of BOD in such a way that it might cause one to doubt EENS is, well, a sin against faith. I am not saying that is what you did. I am just explaining whi I react the way I do to the subject of BOD.

But, why do you even consider BOD when it is forbidden to inquire into whom it may have been applied? BOD is known to exist on the sole basis that we cannot limit the mercy of God. But to bring up the subject of BOD in such a way that it might cause one to doubt EENS is, well, a sin against faith. I am not saying that is what you did. I am just explaining whi I react the way I do to the subject of BOD.

I consider it, because it has been taught by the Church.

I did not bring it up.  I only entered into the fray, so to speak, because it is being used as another means to split the remnant of the Church that exists.  The Dimonds have been able to sway ignorant people.  

If you read my posts, there is no way you can describe my position as harmful to EENS.  Nor can you honestly say that the clergy that the Dimonds condemn do so either.

Following your logic, Christ should not have established the Eucharist, because it would be hard for many to accept.

BTW, do you accept JPII canonizations?

Quote from: gunfighter

the remnant of the Church that exists

Only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be in the Church.

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

You are indeed entangled in the errors of Photius, who was the first to denounce the Pope (Nicholas I) as a heretic.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

And you are entangled in the errors of the Reformers, who were not the first to declare the Pope the Antichrist.


Yes, I accept the canonizations of JP2.

I am subject to a valid Pope.