Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB

You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.

Nonsense.  I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.

You quote and privately interpret them.  

Hmmm.  Let's see.

Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved".

I say, "Pagans cannot be saved."

I fail to see any "interpretation" on my part.

Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved".

Bishop Fellay says, "[Pagans] can be saved".

Word for word the exact opposite.  Who's "interpreting"?

Not only that but you have the audacity and hubris to claim that I am heretical for not saying that when the Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved", that Church really meant to dogmatically define the opposite, that "pagans can be saved".  You are so blind that you do not even see this satanic inversion on your part.  It's Lucifer's master-stroke against the Faith.

Not only does this turn EENS into a "meaningless" formula, it turns the Church's magisterium into a joke.  So Catholics when it was defined came away thinking that pagans cannot be saved, but those simpleton fools !  Alas, they did not know that what the Church REALLY meant was that pagans COULD be saved.  What utter dolts !

You need to pray about what you're doing.  You are aligning yourselves with the enemies of the Faith and with Lucifer himself, all the while thinking that you are doing good ... just as Our Lord predicted.

Faith of the Fathers?

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you

Both these quotes refer to explicit BoD

The proposition that theologians, authorities, Saints and Doctors (especially after Innocent II and III) teach pertains to Catholic doctrine is "there are souls that have been saved by baptism of desire".

This is the truth that you need to confess under pain of mortal sin.

Fr. Cekada also provides extensive docuмentation that at least after these medieval pronouncements of the Magisterium, all theologians ascribe to the proposition above a grade of certitude so high that it cannot be called into question without mortal sin.

these are non-infallible teachings

Pius XII answers this liberal excuse thus, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians"

These medieval teachings of the Holy See are authoritative and binding (those of Innocent II and Innocent III are included in Denzinger nos. 388 and 413), as the subsequent consensus among theologians also shows.

"unbaptized priest"

The reference to the "priest who died without the water of baptism" is thought by some to refer to someone who, by an unfortunate mistake, was baptized invalidly in the medieval Church. Such a person would not have then been able to receive any of the other sacraments. When the mistake was discovered, the question arose. But the Pope (St. Cyprian had earlier said God is able to provide for such persons) responded with the calm assurance that this person is not deprived of the fruits of the sacrament, showing the mind of the Church on this matter.

Innocent II is relying upon Augustine

Peter has spoken through Innocent II, approving the teaching that binds us Catholics. He clearly disagrees with you that St. Ambrose is "ambiguous" and even if St. Augustine changed his opinion (which some scholars deny), the teaching the Magisterium makes its own is what henceforth concerns us.

EXPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE

I already told you that you Feeneyites horribly confuse the issue, and this time I think it is deliberate on your part. The only matter discussed by the Doctors and theologians before Vatican II was not at all about baptism of desire but rather about explicit/implicit faith in Christ in those who receive the sacramental effect by this extraordinary means. That is the only topic that the Doctors and others considered an open question and that therefore can be discussed by Catholics, maybe I'll start a thread on that. I believe everything the Doctors believed on this subject, if you think otherwise, quote them against something I have said.

The Dimond link is so absurd it hardly merits a response - one example of their "reasoning" is like this: we know by our private judgment that Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching is incorrect in other respects (like they imagine on circuмcision and original sin), therefore we use that same private judgment to reject this teaching of his as well. Classic liberals.

Faith of the Fathers?

Quote from: St. Augustine

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you

He's talking about material heresy not Faith of Desire.  You guys always selectively pull out the quotes from one Father or another that you happen to agree with and then beat everyone on the head with the "you must submit" but then conveniently ignore all the other quotes from the Fathers that you don't like.  Again, as I have pointed out, you are not honest.

I already told you that you Feeneyites horribly confuse the issue, and this time I think it is deliberate on your part. The only matter discussed by the Doctors and theologians before Vatican II was not at all about baptism of desire but rather about explicit/implicit faith in Christ in those who receive the sacramental effect by this extraordinary means. That is the only topic that the Doctors and others considered an open question and that therefore can be discussed by Catholics, maybe I'll start a thread on that. I believe everything the Doctors believed on this subject, if you think otherwise, quote them against something I have said.

The Dimond link is so absurd it hardly merits a response - one example of their "reasoning" is like this: we know by our private judgment that Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching is incorrect in other respects (like they imagine on circuмcision and original sin), therefore we use that same private judgment to reject this teaching of his as well. Classic liberals.

Implicit desire being sufficient for salvation is a novelty and is a direct refutation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". Novelties that contradict revealed Church dogma are heresies. After modernism infected the Church, even Catholic themselves, live under a policy of ambiguity, double talk, concealment, and subtle contradiction, in order to please the world and the non-Catholics.

Calling defenders of EENS as written, derogative terms such as feeneyites, dimondites, and the such; only shows utter ignorance of the authentic Catholic Faith, in the global, universal, historical sense. Also shows a lack of broader understanding on how the modernist heresy plagued the Church since way before 1949.  Strict adherence to EENS is what the Church always taught and why She has always came out victorious after so many other heresies and persecutions. This goes far far far beyond Fr. Feeney.

Quote from: Nishant

Faith of the Fathers?

Quote from: St. Augustine

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you

He's talking about material heresy not Faith of Desire.  You guys always selectively pull out the quotes from one Father or another that you happen to agree with and then beat everyone on the head with the "you must submit" but then conveniently ignore all the other quotes from the Fathers that you don't like.  Again, as I have pointed out, you are not honest.

Not one Father, Saint , Doctor, Council taught salvation of those that have no explicit desire to be baptized , nor explicit desire to be Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinty. Plus:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

WHO BELONGS TO THE MYSTICAL BODY?

For one thing, only those who explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity

DOGMA:

 

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

All of which  BODers vehemently deny!  

I have not followed this thread closely but I'm supposing there is no one left that rejects the infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church on this forum now?

There is not an infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church. BOD/B have always been theological opinions only, not revealed dogmas. There is Catholic infallible teaching on "Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus" that may be undermined by the theological speculation on BOD/B though.

You are correct.  I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium.  Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.

Quote from: Ladislaus

You are correct.  I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium.  Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.

What sources do you rely on in this assertion?  When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?

You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.