CathInfo.com

Quote from: bowler

That you only disagree in the wording is finally some truth from you. The only difference between you and Abp. Lefebvre and his quote is that he was honest and sincere and wrote with no subterfuge, and thus he wrote that people are saved outside the Catholic Church. You being a sly snake would never say that they are outside of the Church (which they most certainly are), since it would clearly contradict the dogmas of EENS.

No, you are a snake, and you seek teachers according to you own desires, teachers that teach the same as Abp. Lefebvre, however, do not say that they are outside of the Church. So, what I said what accurate, for you believe exactly what Abp. L wrote. Because of people like you, we have Vatican II.

When he says "outside the Church," he means actual membership, not a denial of the necessity of belonging to the Church nor a denial of the dogma.

So, now outside of the Church does not mean outside of the Church? Let me add that to the list of all the other dogmas that you say should not be understood as they are written.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler

That you only disagree in the wording is finally some truth from you. The only difference between you and Abp. Lefebvre and his quote is that he was honest and sincere and wrote with no subterfuge, and thus he wrote that people are saved outside the Catholic Church. You being a sly snake would never say that they are outside of the Church (which they most certainly are), since it would clearly contradict the dogmas of EENS.

No, you are a snake, and you seek teachers according to you own desires, teachers that teach the same as Abp. Lefebvre, however, do not say that they are outside of the Church. So, what I said what accurate, for you believe exactly what Abp. L wrote. Because of people like you, we have Vatican II.

When he says "outside the Church," he means actual membership, not a denial of the necessity of belonging to the Church nor a denial of the dogma.

So, now outside of the Church does not mean outside of the Church? Let me add that to the list of all the other dogmas that you say should not be understood as they are written.

No idiot, it is semantics. One must use words to convey ideas.

Your effeminate outburst are getting tiring. Loosen up your panties and man up. If the heat is too hot, get out of the kitchen.

Dear Lover of Truth,

What has done the most damage to souls in the history of the Church is your one hair away from universal salvation belief, which is the common belief of even "traditionalist" sedevacantes persons like Fr. Cekada, CMRI, SSPius V, who are foaming liberals when it comes to BOD, for they TEACH that people are saved regularly every day by their false religion, and that although they don't know it, they are Catholics.

This belief has done the most damage to souls in the history of the Church  because it is foundational to Vatican II's teachings on ecuмenism and religious freedom, which IS what Vatican II was all about. Vatican II has done the most damage to the Church of all heresies, and your one hair away from universal salvation belief is foundational to VatII. The reality is that people like you are the root cause of Vatican II, and you don't even know it or see it.

Quote

Bishop Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976):
“We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”

Here is Karl Rahner one of the the chief architects of Vatican II saying the same this as I state above:


Problem of the Anonymous Christian,
Fr. Karl Rahner 1976:

"There can be, and actually are, individuals who are actually justified in the grace of God who attain to supernatural salvation in God’s sight . . . , yet who do not belong to the Church . . . as a visible historical reality . . . No truly theological demonstration of this thesis can be supplied here from scripture or tradition. Such a demonstration would not be easy to make, because the optimism of universal salvation entailed in this thesis has only gradually become clear and asserted itself in the conscious faith concerning salvation for unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose, through the doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings of Pius XII to the effect that even a merely implicit votum for the Church and baptism can suffice.

It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation . . . The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual’s own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the . . . Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith, than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.

There you have the wild imaginings of an heretical theologian who was a dedicated modernist. His claim for universal salvation is in direct contradiction to the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and his statement that there was no "setting of the stage" at Vatican II is an outright lie. Notice, however, his admission that it is not possible to support his theory of universal salvation from Scripture or Tradition, but only from the gradually evolving theories about "desire" beginning with Saint Ambrose and Valentinian, to the "baptism of desire" and "desire of the Church" of the Middle Ages and Trent, and finally to the writings of Pope Pius XII — meaning, no doubt, Mystici Corporis and Protocol Letter #122/49. The reader will note that Father Rahner, often described as the most influential peritus at the Council, considered the overturning of "the officially received theology" concerning salvation — which was "more or less traditional right down to the. . . Council" — as "one of the most noteworthy results of the. . . Council." He says this change "marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith" than any of the other new teachings the conclave introduced".

There you have it, right from the "horse’s mouth!" Indeed, there was a "setting of the stage" to destroy the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. It was the modernists’ prime target!