Author Topic: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved? (Read 7647 times)

Banezian · « **Reply #45 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:24:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 12:18:55 PM

Uhm, St. Alphonsus is not the Church. Even of the pro-BoD theologians cited by the pro-BoD Father Cekada, the majority of them merely held BoD to be theologically certain and not de fide. So even among pro-BoD theologians, St. Alhponsus was in the minority on this opinion.

I’ll put it this way. I’ll go with St. Alphonsus over a layman who didn’t finish seminary. If that gives me a bad rep on this forum, so be it

Ladislaus · « **Reply #46 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:24:41 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 12:16:32 PM

Lad, I’m sorry, but you’re ideas don’t mean squat when they differ from men of this caliber. To follow you over St. Alphonsus would be a great example of the blind leading the blind.

No, your heretical ideas don't mean squat, since we've already established that you believe that non-Catholics can be saved. Stop trying to distort and exploit BoD as a justification for your heresy, since most of these same Doctors who accept BoD at the same time reject your heresy that non-Catholics can be saved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:25:16 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 12:24:28 PM

I’ll put it this way. I’ll go with St. Alphonsus over a layman who didn’t finish seminary. If that gives me a bad rep on this forum, so be it

You'll go with whoever you think you can distort into backup up your heretical rejection of EENS.

Banezian · « **Reply #48 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:32:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 12:24:41 PM

No, your heretical ideas don't mean squat, since we've already established that you believe that non-Catholics can be saved. Stop trying to distort and exploit BoD as a justification for your heresy, since most of these same Doctors who accept BoD at the same time reject your heresy that non-Catholics can be saved.

That’s a lie. Non-Catholics can not be saved as non-Catholics. I’ve never said that. If they are saved they are saved as Catholics. You attack me because I point out that you’re nothing compared to St. Alphonsus or any of those other men.

Banezian · « **Reply #49 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:33:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 12:25:16 PM

You'll go with whoever you think you can distort into backup up your heretical rejection of EENS.

So Lad, what exactly is my heresy? Be clear and concise friend

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #50 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:50:49 PM »

Quote

Explaining baptism of desire (BOD) is opening a can of worms. It is a theory never defined exactly and not a dogma, in fact it conflicts with all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, unless you do not read the dogmas as they are written, actually ignore them all (hence my satirical posting before). Baptism of desire can mean anything to one who says they believe in BOD, here in CathInfo we call the believers in baptism of desire BODers, and their belief ranges from:

1) The purest form - a catechumen who is on his way to be baptized, but gets run over by a car. They say he can be saved by his desire to be baptized, and he goes to an undecided place, no unanimous decision if they go direct to heaven like if they were baptized in water and got run over one second later, or if they go to Purgatory, and some people even say they go to limbo of the infants. (In my 25 years of experience on the subject, of all BODers today, less than 1%, if that, limit their BOD to this purest form)

2) Then you have the person that desires to be a Catholic, and believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (Jesus Christ is God and Man), but does not know about baptism, and gets run over by a car. The theory is that he will be saved by his implicit desire to be baptized. His desire for baptism is implicit in his desire to be a Catholic and his two beliefs. This term "implicit" is twisted by practically all BODers to mean any desire whatsoever, and no belief in the Trinity and Incarnation (see next)

3) Then you have baptism of desire stretched to its maximum, which is that with not even any desire, no desire whatsoever to be a Catholic or baptized, nor any belief in the Trinity or Incarnation, a person is saved by implicit faith (they will call it implicit baptism of desire which it is not). It is a Hindu who is a good person will be saved by his belief in a God that rewards. By believing in a God that rewards he implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation and wants to be a Catholic. That is what 99% of BODers believe when they are pressed to talk straight, which takes a lot of effort, for they are embarrassed of what they believe. BODers do not know how to explain it like that, they can't accept that a "nice" person will go to hell, so they seek teachers according to their own desires and that is how their teachers explain it.

St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, Saint Ambrose and many other Fathers of the Church rejected altogether that an unbaptized in water person could be saved, what is called today baptism of desire. They rejected #1,2, 3 just like those that Banezian calls Feeneyites and heretics.

St. Thomas Aquinas who lived before the dogmas on EENS were declared, believed in #1, never mentioned #2, and #3 didn't even exist as a theory.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri who lived after the dogmas believed #1 and #2 and rejected #3.

(Both of the theories above are of no importance whatsoever, how many people do you know that died on th way to be baptized, and moreover, it is not a given that just because they are on the way to be baptized and get killed, that they are saved, it is not an automatic. All of that makes it of no consequence. If somebody wants to believe that God would take the life of the person minutes before he is baptized in water, so be it. )

No Father, Doctor or Saint ever taught #3, it was a theory unheard off by any laity till the 20th century and is taught in Vatican II. It's only status is that it has not been declared a heresy yet. The same as Vatican II.

Banezian says he'll take St. Alphonsus over Ladislaus, however, he totally throws St. Alphonsus under the bus in his real belief #3. Banezian is just someone seeking teachers according to his own desires.

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers" (2Tim4:3)

ascanio1 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 20, 2019, 01:49:21 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on November 20, 2019, 04:08:48 AM

- Then you have baptism of desire stretched to its maximum, which is that with not even any desire, no desire whatsoever to be a Catholic or baptized, nor any belief in the Trinity or Incarnation, a person is saved by implicit faith (they will call it implicit baptism of desire which it is not). It is a Hindu who is a good person will be saved by his belief in a God that rewards. By believing in a God that rewards he implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation and wants to be a Catholic. That is what 99% of BODers believe when they are pressed to talk straight, which takes a lot of effort, for they are embarrassed of what they believe. BODers do not know how to explain it like that, they can't accept that a "nice" person will go to hell, so they seek teachers according to their own desires and that is how their teachers explain it.

What a load of crap! Forgive my french.

What is the point of religions, any religion, let alone Catholicism, if all one has to do it to be a good individual to be saved! One might as well be an atheist! An atheist, at least, is intellectually honest!

The tragedy is that souls very close to me believe exactly this third flavour of BoD. This concept elicits the conviction that Catholic precepts, doctrines and even dogmas are unnecessary.

Did you hear Pope Francis' recent comment about dogmas (9.10.2019)?

"Appartengo alla Chiesa unversale con buoni e cattivi, ma con tutti, o appartengo a una ideologia selettiva? Adoro Dio o adoro le formulazioni dogmatiche? Com’ è la mia vita religiosa? La fede in Dio che professo mi rende amichevole oppure ostile verso chi è diverso da me?".

Loosely translated: "Do I belong to the universal Church of ogood and evil men, or to a selective ideology? Do I love God or dogma? How is my religious life? Does my faith make me friendly or hostile to those who are different (*).

(*) the consequential meaning here is: 'those who follow different faiths'

----------------------------------

Have you heard of relativism and postmodernism? They advance that all moral principles and cultures are equivalent in their own contexts. I read somewhere that Frankfurt school "scholars" proposed a theory that suggested that, if any god existed at all, then that god would be merciful to individuals of all, flase, religions as well. The reasoning was that somehow (I forget how) that god would be, implicitly, also the god of all other religions...
This BoD nonsense sounds as if it was conjured by a reborn Frankfurt school advocate!

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #52 on:** November 20, 2019, 02:03:50 PM »

There are millions of examples of people miraculously hanging on to life, then they are baptized and die. 100's of examples of people being sent back from the dead just to be baptized, here are a few:

From : Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, by Fr. Angel Valtiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.:

"The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family."

St. Vincent Ferrer –
There was a rich Jew of Andalusia, named Abraham, who began to leave a church in anger while Vincent was preaching. The Jew did not like what he was hearing. As some people at the door opposed his passing through, St. Vincent cried out: "Let him go! Come away all of you at once, and leave the passage free!" The people did as he ordered, and at the instant the Jew left, part of the porch structure fell on him and crushed him to death. Then the saint rose from his chair and went to the body. He knelt there in prayer. Abraham came to life, and his first words were: "The religion of the Jews is not the true faith. The True Faith is that of the Christians."

  In memory of this event the Jew was baptized Elias (in honor of the prophet who had raised the boy from the dead). The new convert established a pious foundation in the church of the "accident" and the miracle. Bishop Peter Ranzano's account was used for this version of the miracle.

St. Patrick –
In the country of Neyll, a King Echu allowed St. Patrick to receive his beloved daughter Cynnia as a nun, though he bewailed the fact that his royal line would thereby end without issue. The king exacted a promise from Patrick not to insist that he be baptized, yet to promise him the heavenly kingdom. Patrick agreed, and left the matter in the hands of God.

Sometime later King Echu lay dying. He sent a messenger to St. Patrick to tell him he desired Baptism and the heavenly kingdom. To those around him the King gave an order that he not be buried until Patrick came. Patrick, then in the monastery of Saballum, two days' journey away, knew of the situation through the Holy Ghost before the messenger even arrived. He left to go to the King, but arrived to find Echu dead.

St. Patrick revived the King, instructed him, and baptized him. He asked Echu to relate what he had seen of the joys of the just and the pains of the wicked, so that his account could be used for the proving of Patrick's preaching. Echu told of many other-world wonders and of how, in the heavenly country, he had seen the place that Patrick promised him. But the King could not enter in because he was unbaptized.

Then St. Patrick asked Echu if he would rather live longer in this world, or go to the place prepared for him in the heavenly kingdom. The King answered that all the world had was emptiest smoke compared to the celestial joys. Then having received the Eucharist, he fell asleep in the Lord.

St. Joan of Arc prays and brings a dead baby back to life so that it might be baptized. -Baby said to have been dead for 3 days
  In the Spring of 1430, Joan had just arrived in Lagny-sur-Marne, France, where she was to lead the French forces there against the English. It was there, in the midst of war, that the miracle occurred.

  According to her own testimony, she was called upon to join some other young women who were praying in a Church beseeching God and the Blessed Virgin Mary on behalf of a dead baby, that it might be revived long enough to baptize it. Here is Joan's own testimony

"I was told that the girls of the town were gathered before the statue of our Lady and wanted me to come and pray to God and our Lady to bring a baby back to life. So I went and prayed with the others. And finally life appeared in him, and he yawned three times. Then he was baptized, and soon afterwords he died, and was buried in consecrated ground.

  For three days, I was told, he had shown no signs of life, and he was as black as my jacket. But when he yawned his color began to come back. And I was on my knees there with the other girls, praying before our Lady."

Father Point
  Fr. Point, S.J. was a fellow Jesuit Missionary to the Indians with Fr. De Smet in the 19th century. He tells a very interesting story about the miraculous resuscitation for baptism of a person who had been instructed in the Faith but apparently died without receiving the sacrament.
Father Point, S.J., quoted in The Life of Fr. De Smet, pp. 165-166 >
  "One morning, upon leaving the Church I met an Indian woman, who said: ‘So-and-so is not well.’ She (the person who was not well) was not yet a catechumen and I said I would go to see her. An hour later the same person (who came and told him the person is not well), who was her sister, came to me saying she was dead. I ran to the tent, hoping she might be mistaken, and found a crowd of relatives around the bed, repeating, 'She is dead – she has not breathed for some time.' To assure myself, I leaned over the body; there was no sign of life. I reproved these excellent people for not telling me at once of the gravity of the situation, adding,

'May God forgive me!’ Then, rather impatiently, I said, 'Pray!' and all fell on their knees and prayed devoutly.

"I again leaned over the supposed corpse and said, 'The Black Robe is here: do you wish him to baptize you?' At the word baptism I saw a slight tremor of the lower lip; then both lips moved, making me certain that she understood. She had already been instructed, so I at once baptized her, and she rose from her bier, making the sign of the cross. Today she is out hunting and is fully persuaded that she died at the time I have recounted."

Saint Francis De Sales, died 1622 A.D. >
  In the life of St. Francis De Sales we also find a child miraculously raised from the dead specifically for the Sacrament of Baptism.
"A baby, the child of a heretic mother, had died without baptism. St. Francis had gone to speak to the mother about Catholic doctrine, and prayed that the child would be restored to life long enough to receive Baptism. His prayer was granted, and the whole family became Catholic."

Saint Stephen, died c. 33 A.D. (through his intervention) >
"At Uzale, a woman had an infant son… Unfortunately, he died before they had time to baptize him. His mother was overwhelmed with grief, more for his being deprived of Life Eternal than because he was dead to her. Full of confidence, she took the dead child and publicly carried him to the Church of St. Stephen, the first martyr. There she commenced to pray for the son she had just lost. Her son moved, uttered a cry, and was suddenly restored to life. She immediately brought him to the priests; and, after receiving the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, he died anew."

Re

Merry · « **Reply #53 on:** November 20, 2019, 02:08:38 PM »

Regarding BOD/Baltimore Catechism - and first, Pope Leo XIII -

Two quotes from –
Testem benevolentiae nostrae by Leo XIII – his Bull against “Americanism”

Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

- and

For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.

Very near the beginning of this writing, Pope Leo indicated that it was necessitated by a biography of the American Founder of the Paulists, Fr. Isaac Hecker. This biography contained some alarming liberalism indicative of the spirit of the Church in America, especially among some members of the hierarchy. To explain, said one article on Ultramontanism (supporting the authority of the Pope):

  “The conflict raging between liberal and conservative views within U.S. Catholicism during the 1890s was cast by Thomas Preston, vicar general for Archbishop Corrigan, in terms of Americanist vs. Romanist sympathies. Said Preston:

Here in New York we are loyal Catholics. We are devoted to the Holy See, we do not believe in the great folly and absurdity of Americanizing the Catholic church. We propose to Catholicize America. We are entirely Roman in all our actions and affections.

Roman affections were animated by the establishment of an Apostolic Delegation at Washington on January 4,1893, headed by Archbishop Francesco Satolli, and details of American church life were thenceforth increasingly decided by Rome.

Initially sought by liberal American bishops, the appointment of an Apostolic Delegate went sour when Satolli turned against them. By 1895 he returned to the Vatican, where, as a cardinal, he headed an investigation of the U.S. Church which ended in Leo XIII's condemnation of Americanism in 1899.”

All this is just to say that Catholicism in America was of such a liberal stripe that by 1899 the Pope wrote a Bull directly to James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore – who wrote right back objecting to what the Pope had said. To make being Catholic in America “easier,” one method was the loosening up of the catechisms used. The liberalizing of baptism with Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is seen as an almost American peculiarity, making Church membership/salvation “easier.” (One can speak with Catholics from other countries who will say they never, ever heard of BOD/BOB!)

It seems the catechism that had been used in the US in the earlier 1800’s was the Catechism of St. John Neumann of Philadelphia. Very simple and straightforward and no mention of any Baptism but that of water. The US church then thought to use the famous Butler’s Penny Catechism from Ireland, again based on Trent, and very clear that one had to be Catholic to be saved and Baptism was of water (See page 23 - https://archive.org/details/cihm_26727 . And notice this version was Butler’s as used in Quebec!)

But no – it seems eventually around 1885 began the series of Baltimore Catechisms. At first was a version with BOB/BOD. The BOB/BOD reference was removed when the Catechism was shortened by several questions, so for a while the Baltimore Catechism only asserted Baptism of Water. Then version #3 and #4 again included the “diversions” of the alternative BOB/BOD baptisms.

Now, here is presented Fr. Leonard Feeney's indignant discussion of this whole convoluted mess. It's worth following to the end --

Fr. Feeney -

The Catholic Faith in the United States of America is always academically ascribed to the Baltimore Catechism.

The Baltimore Catechism was confected at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, by a group of American Bishops under the control and influence of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. James Cardinal Gibbons was a Catholic prelate who did not hesitate to get up before a Methodist congregation, in a Methodist Church, and give a supposedly Catholic sermon while reading from a Protestant Bible!

Cardinal Gibbons was not a great theologian. He was a controller of theological thought. I hesitate to call him an opportunist, because there may be times when a priest might brilliantly take advantage of a situation, for Our Lord’s sake. But when a Catholic prelate becomes all opportunist, and is interested in teaching what doctrines of the Church would be most to the liking of his hearers or what general summary of the Church’s history — as in the Baltimore Cardinal’s book, The Faith of Our Fathers — will be least offensive to his new-found neighbors, then I think opportunism, is serious defect.

Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, “How many kinds of Baptism are there?”: “There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.”

That is heresy! There is only one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith. (Eph. 4:5.) The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that this one Baptism, which is administered by water, is the one which must be faithfully confessed by all.

The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the Church:
If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, “unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit” (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.

Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is “Baptism of Desire,” as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?

The same heretical theology that turned Baptism of Water into any dry desire one might have in the general direction of Heaven, has also turned one Lord into one’s personal sincerity, and one Faith into the light of invincible ignorance!

And, by the way, speaking of the Baltimore Catechism, even its most ardent supporters are forced to admit that shortly after the publication of the Baltimore Catechism, various editions with word meanings, explanatory notes, and even with different arrangements, came forth — so that, by testimony of all Catholic theologians in America, there is a considerable diversity in the books that go by the name of the Baltimore Catechism. Yet the Baltimore Catechism is always referred to in a singular apostrophe, as though it had the dignity of the Gospel itself.

A catechism is as good as the man who wrote it. If the Baltimore Catechism is so good, why do they revise it and revise it and revise it?

The crucial point, then, at which heresy entered the Catholic Church in the United States and backwashed to the dying Faith of Europe and the rest of the world, was through the teaching of the doctrine known as “Baptism of Desire,” in the Baltimore Catechism.

As I have explained to you many times, neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** November 20, 2019, 02:52:01 PM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 20, 2019, 01:49:21 PM

What a load of crap! Forgive my french.

Agreed. Check out the scan below from Myrna, she has not posted here in a while but she scanned it from some catechism - that catechism teaches that the recipient does not even need to know there is such a thing as a sacrament of baptism - this catechism teaches that God rewards him anyway.

So as you see, ultimately, for the BODers, it is the road to heaven that is paved with good intentions, not the road to hell.

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** November 20, 2019, 02:57:35 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 12:24:28 PM

I’ll put it this way. I’ll go with St. Alphonsus over a layman who didn’t finish seminary. If that gives me a bad rep on this forum, so be it

The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Commentary on this canon by St. Alphonsus Liguori:

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto)" - St. Alphonsus

From: (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)

ascanio1 · « **Reply #56 on:** November 20, 2019, 03:17:56 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 10:44:57 AM

EENS is a dogma but so is BOD. How far BOD extends is up for debate but to reject it all together is proximate to heresy

Kindly, could you docuмent how BoD is a dogma? When was it decreed to be a dogma?

ascanio1 · « **Reply #57 on:** November 20, 2019, 03:53:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 11:45:21 AM

Also, if Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Protestants can be saved, then they must be in the Church ... since outside the Church there can be no salvation. So, now we have a Church that includes non-Catholics. So, sure, it subsists of Catholics, but it is not limited to them, but includes many non-Catholics as well. Starting to sound familiar yet?

Yes. I see the greater picture. But other faiths are not as reciprocal as one might imagine...

Before visiting this community, I always felt that there was something off about the way ecuмenism was glorified but proponents were so persuasive that I thought that I was the one who held integralist ideas.

ascanio1 · « **Reply #58 on:** November 20, 2019, 04:01:57 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 12:16:32 PM

Umm yes. From St. Alphonsus
“ We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

And here are a bunch of other theologians who say the exact same thing
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiL5OaOsfnlAhXLtVkKHQynBkQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmri.org%2F02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml&usg=AOvVaw0usz7RT-aG42dbTK8M3Rpl
Lad, I’m sorry, but you’re ideas don’t mean squat when they differ from men of this caliber. To follow you over St. Alphonsus would be a great example of the blind leading the blind.

Is this an infallible truth?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #59 on:** November 20, 2019, 04:04:17 PM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 20, 2019, 01:49:21 PM

Did you hear Pope Francis' recent comment about dogmas (9.10.2019)?

"Appartengo alla Chiesa unversale con buoni e cattivi, ma con tutti, o appartengo a una ideologia selettiva? Adoro Dio o adoro le formulazioni dogmatiche? Com’ è la mia vita religiosa? La fede in Dio che professo mi rende amichevole oppure ostile verso chi è diverso da me?".

Loosely translated: "Do I belong to the universal Church of ogood and evil men, or to a selective ideology? Do I love God or dogma? How is my religious life? Does my faith make me friendly or hostile to those who are different (*).

(*) the consequential meaning here is: 'those who follow different faiths'

No, but this is indeed heresy. One of the EENS definitions referred to there being no salvation outside of the Church "of the faithful". Now he replaces is with the "universal Church of good and evil men" He's replacing faith and doctrine/dogma with "goodness, kindness, and inclusiveness". This is about as heretical as it gets. This man is clearly a manifest heretic. There can be no more hiding this. He constantly speaks with contempt about dogma.

Author Topic: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved? (Read 7647 times)

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Last Tradhican

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

ascanio1

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Last Tradhican

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Merry

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Stubborn

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Stubborn

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

ascanio1

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

ascanio1

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

ascanio1

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?