Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: gunfighter

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: pax

What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?

That we can have at least  good [/size]hope for the salvation of those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX)

This is why I believe that your are either of bad faith or do not have the necessary capacity to determine what is de fide.

The operative word that you totally disregard is GOOD.  No one has EVER stated that there is a GOOD chance of salvation.  In fact, all of the traditional Catholic proponents of BOD say it is  VERY RARE that some saves their soul through BOD.

I didn't say one thing or another, all I did was post the quote. You are totally out of line, saying I'm of bad faith.

Besides, if the dogmatic decree on EENS "absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ" can be twisted to mean that that pretty much anyone can be saved, then what's the big deal about this word "good"? Get real.  

If you are of bad faith then you lack the ability to analyze doctrine.  All of you cites, do not address the question that you answer with them.

No one has said that "pretty much anyone can be saved."  We have said it is EXTREMELY RARE.  Since you seem to constantly misrepresent the Church's position on the issue, it is logical to assume you are of bad faith.

To address your rhetorical question.  If a protestant sheds his blood for Christ, but holds steadfast to his heresy, he is NOT saved.

If you have one instance, no matter how rare, it makes the entire case false ad vitiates the entire Catholic Faith.

Take a course in logic and learn that ignoring the law of contradiction can basically undermine the position you're really trying to defend.

Either there's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church or there isn't.  If you're going to contradict a dogma that's been infallibly defined three times with one rare instance, you might as well forget about the whole thing.

No one who is saved is outside the Catholic Church.  I'm willing to bet there are people who have not received water Baptism who have been saved, and that the saints who believed in the possibility of salvation without water Baptism had a good understanding of elementary logic, and certainly have had the position that their position does not contradict EENS.

This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith —Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit." 4

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

Here's a question. If Christ made baptism absolutely necessary for salvation, why is it that He never baptized anyone?

Well, there really is no "if" about it, we know Jesus did make it absolutely necessary for salvation..........John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

As to why He never baptized anyone is anyone's guess - should they decide to bother guessing.

If baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, wouldn't Christ have had a moral obligation to baptize all of His followers?

His command was sufficient, Christ is not obligated, morally or otherwise to any man to do anything. It is we who are obligated to Him. It is we who are bound to His commands, not the other way around.  

Cupertino wrote: You care for logic? Then tackle the logic I provided, which Nadie ran away from

There's as many personal opinions as there are people. I don't waste time debating against people's personal opinions. If you want to discuss the Catholic faith, post authorities from tradition.

So far your record is perfect, 100% personal opinons.

Telephorus wrote: No one who is saved is outside the Catholic Church.  I'm willing to bet there are people who have not received water Baptism who have been saved,

Willing to bet? That's not very convincing. Just your opinion.

Telephorus: the saints who believed in the possibility of salvation without water Baptism had a good understanding of elementary logic, and certainly have had the position that their position does not contradict EENS.
From SSPX site:
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith —Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."

This information that you posted is all erroneous and outdated.  They're painting with a broad brush, and every point has been shown to be wrong.
The Fathers of the Church - all come out clearly against the possibility of salvation of the unbaptized catechumen. Look at the St. Augustine quote that started this thread. I could post St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysiotom, St. Fulgetius, all CLEARLY against the idea. Now that's against the possibility of  BOD salvation of the unbaptized catechumen. There is not one Father, or any Saint that ever said that a Protestant, or any heretic or schismatic can be saved, in any way shape or form, unless they explicitly convert and confess to a priest before they die. Not one!  Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, quotes about BOD are dubious docuмents thought to be forged. The Council of Trent never said anything about BOD. Pope Pius IX only talkked about invincible ignorance in fallible non-universal, non-binding speeches. Pope St. Pius X never said anything about BOD. (Since your SSPX quote is painting with a broad brush, I answer with quick replies. Bring up some details and I can answer those more specifically.)

That SSPX book is a joke, it's old information that's been dismantled and shown to be empty. It just shows how little proof the BODers have for their theories.

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Cupertino

It became an obligation upon the birth of the Catholic Church. That was from Pentecost on, after the Resurrection and Ascension.

Why then did Christ tell Nicodemus Baptism was necessary for salvation long before Pentecost?

God was talking in regard to setting up his Church in the very near future. The transition period was unique in going from the true religion on earth of the Jews to the true religion of Christ universally for mankind. Just as when Christ told men that they would not have eternal life unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood well before the institution of the Holy Eucharist.

It is curious how He did not use the future tense though. He spoke in present tense. Unless you do x, you cannot be saved. Why do this if He meant for this requirement to take place in the future?

Perfect example of two Protestants having a discussion, not one quote from an authority of any kind. This is not Catholic. I don't mean to belittle you two, but your "system" is not the Catholic way to discover truth.

Quote

What about a prot who has been validly baptized but converts on their deathbed internally without verbalizing it? In other words, they have been baptized, they are a prot, but they are consciously desiring union in the catholic church but are unable to verbalize this desire since they are breaths away from death?

I answered this before. A validly baptized Protestant who converts in his deathbed, is a Catholic. However, Catholics die all the time, and go to hell just for having one unbaptized sin on their soul. Therefore, the converted Protestant has to confess all his other his sins, just like a Catholic. A Catholic can do a perfect act of contrition, but it requires that he want to confess his sins to a priest. If the Catholic is willing to confess all his sins but one that he is too embarased to confess, he is lost. Now, if a converted Protestant is not willing to confess his sins to a priest, then he will not be saved, just like any other Catholic.
In both cases, there was no "perfect act of contrition.

Nadie, let me ask you a few questions that are related to this.

-Are you a sede?

-Where do you assist at?

-How do you explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of traditional priests (both SSPX and sede) believe in BOD/BOB?

-Are they committing an error, a material heresey, or outright heresey?

-If they are involved in heresey (whether materially or formally) how do you feel about receiving sacraments from them?