Author Topic: False BOD is Foundational to VatII (Read 8845 times)

bowler · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »

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.

SJB · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2014, 03:27:31 PM »

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.

bowler · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2014, 03:56:56 PM »

Quote from: SJB

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.

SJB · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2014, 05:30:06 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
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.

Yes, the man who complains of insults ...

Aren't you the one who needs to specifically state in his or her signature that he/she is a man?

bowler · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2014, 07:07:42 PM »

Quote from: bowler

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!

SJB · « **Reply #20 on:** February 08, 2014, 12:24:32 PM »

Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?

bowler · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2014, 03:32:19 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?

Quote

There are no BODers here on CI with the capacity to answer questions like these. This is why they only write insults, ad-hominem attacks, end runs to avoid details, and long copy and paste articles that they themselves can't answer any questions about. Once they are asked questions, they instantly revert to back to the same avoidance techniques.

Watch and see how not one can answer anything put forth here, except with their avoidance techniques.

Dear SJB,

Once again, thank you for bumping up my threads. Keep up the good work.

SJB · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2014, 04:08:13 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?

Quote
There are no BODers here on CI with the capacity to answer questions like these. This is why they only write insults, ad-hominem attacks, end runs to avoid details, and long copy and paste articles that they themselves can't answer any questions about. Once they are asked questions, they instantly revert to back to the same avoidance techniques.

Watch and see how not one can answer anything put forth here, except with their avoidance techniques.

Dear SJB,

Once again, thank you for bumping up my threads. Keep up the good work.

You're the "man" who argues with St. Alphonsus and then quotes Karl Rahner.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2014, 05:39:15 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: SJB
Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?

Quote
There are no BODers here on CI with the capacity to answer questions like these. This is why they only write insults, ad-hominem attacks, end runs to avoid details, and long copy and paste articles that they themselves can't answer any questions about. Once they are asked questions, they instantly revert to back to the same avoidance techniques.

Watch and see how not one can answer anything put forth here, except with their avoidance techniques.

Dear SJB,

Once again, thank you for bumping up my threads. Keep up the good work.

You're the "man" who argues with St. Alphonsus and then quotes Karl Rahner.

Nice. :applause:

Jehanne · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2014, 07:28:12 AM »

Quote from: bowler

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!

Even the present Catechism of the Catholic Church (which, by the way, does not even reference Karl Rahner in a single footnote, but which, instead, directly quotes, by name, from Saint Thomas Aquinas at least seven times with several dozen more footnotes) teaches that at least some individuals have been lost:

Quote

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. 479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": 480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." 481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

http://www.kofc.org/en/catechism/

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2014, 08:26:10 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
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!

Even the present Catechism of the Catholic Church (which, by the way, does not even reference Karl Rahner in a single footnote, but which, instead, directly quotes, by name, from Saint Thomas Aquinas at least seven times with several dozen more footnotes) teaches that at least some individuals have been lost:

Quote
633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. 479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": 480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." 481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

http://www.kofc.org/en/catechism/

Good point. But it does not mention individuals by name as some Feeneyites do.

For the record as you may know the vast majority of quotes from C"C"C quote from V2 or after. And there pre-v2 quotes are sometimes misused.

JPaul · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2014, 08:26:58 AM »

Quote from: SJB

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.

That is correct, and that is why the Church uses precise and chosen words to define what is to be understood in Her dogmatic pronouncements on Exclusive Salvation as found in the Catholic Church. So that there can be no misunderstanding of the idea which She has proposed and are to be known and understood by those words which She has used alone.

bowler · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:51:54 AM »

Quote from: bowler

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...”

SJB · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:59:30 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: SJB
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.

That is correct, and that is why the Church uses precise and chosen words to define what is to be understood in Her dogmatic pronouncements on Exclusive Salvation as found in the Catholic Church. So that there can be no misunderstanding of the idea which She has proposed and are to be known and understood by those words which She has used alone.

Do you think Lefebvre was giving a definition?

Also, don't you think the actual context of what was being defined or condemned is important in understanding the decrees?

Remember, the dogma is EENS, which is outside the Church there is no salvation. Be precise, because it doesn't say actual membership, it says one must not be outside.

bowler · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2014, 12:37:59 PM »

Sure SJB, Abp. Lefebvre should not be understood as he wrote it, and all the dogmas on EENS and baptism should not be understood as they are written, and maybe you and I should not be understood as we write. And maybe what should not be understood as it is written should not be understood as it is written.

"There was once a cat that fell asleep and dreamed that he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up, he did not know whether he was a man or a cat".