Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on February 06, 2014, 10:02:44 AM
-
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.
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...”
-
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.
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...”
I do not use ABL as a theology resource.
-
Abp. L in that quote and others teaches word for word what you believe and expound here. And it is what the CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, and all the other "tradtionalists teach.
People like YOU are the reason why we had Vatican II.
-
Abp. L in that quote and others teaches word for word what you believe and expound here. And it is what the CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, and all the other "tradtionalists teach.
People like YOU are the reason why we had Vatican II.
Incorrect.
-
Abp. L in that quote and others teaches word for word what you believe and expound here. And it is what the CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, and all the other "tradtionalists teach.
People like YOU are the reason why we had Vatican II.
Incorrect.
Sorry, Bowler is spot on.
-
Abp. L in that quote and others teaches word for word what you believe and expound here. And it is what the CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, and all the other "tradtionalists teach.
People like YOU are the reason why we had Vatican II.
Incorrect.
Sorry, Bowler is spot on.
Incorrect.
-
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.
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...”
Well said, Bowler :rahrah:
-
Abp. L in that quote and others teaches word for word what you believe and expound here. And it is what the CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, and all the other "tradtionalists teach.
People like YOU are the reason why we had Vatican II.
Incorrect.
Sorry, Bowler is spot on.
Incorrect.
Sorry, Alcuin and bowler are spot on.
.
-
From another thread, here is Lover of Truth admitting that what Abp. Lefebvre believes is what he believes:
Dear LOT,
What has done the most damage 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 is foundational to Vatican II's teachings on ecuмenism and religious freedom, which IS what Vatican II was all about. People like you are the root cause of Vatican II, and you don't see it?
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...”
I do not agree with the above wording. But I believe I understand what he was trying to say.
The Church's teaching on BOB/D is not a hair away from universal salvation.
To say it is possible for non-members to be saved (so long as all the per-requisites are fulfilled) is different than saying everyone is saved no matter what.
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.
-
From another thread, here is Lover of Truth admitting that what Abp. Lefebvre believes is what he believes:
Dear LOT,
What has done the most damage 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 is foundational to Vatican II's teachings on ecuмenism and religious freedom, which IS what Vatican II was all about. People like you are the root cause of Vatican II, and you don't see it?
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...”
I do not agree with the above wording. But I believe I understand what he was trying to say.
The Church's teaching on BOB/D is not a hair away from universal salvation.
To say it is possible for non-members to be saved (so long as all the per-requisites are fulfilled) is different than saying everyone is saved no matter what.
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.
Remember bowler. You will have to account for your dishonesty before the Just Judge.
-
Everything I write is as CLEAR as day. Everyone knows what I believe, it is even written on my signature on every posting.
It is you who is works in the shadows, never clearly revealing what you believe.
Abp. Lefebvre did not work in the shadows, he spoke clearly, and we see in his quote above the truth about your belief, that you believe that those outside of the Church can be saved. You post endlessly Fr. Fenton's 1950's book length explanations, efforts, to say the same without saying that they are outside of the Church (which they are). It is you who work in the shadows.
"One can't lie, even to save the World".
Your subterfuge is just another form of a lie.
-
The liar bowler lies about lying. Let me know when I'm supposed to be surprised.
-
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.
What you fail to realize here (because you are stupid and imprecise) is that you admit Lefebvre is straightforward and honest, yet he nowhere denies the dogma of EENS.
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.
-
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.
What you fail to realize here (because you are stupid and imprecise)
There you go again using insulting remarks. A gentleman should never say something online that he would not say face to face. Would you call me stupid and imprecise if we were face to face?
-
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.
What you fail to realize here (because you are stupid and imprecise)
There you go again using insulting remarks. A gentleman should never say something online that he would not say face to face. Would you call me stupid and imprecise if we were face to face?
Yes, I would. What you promote here is criminal.
I think Matthew should ban you for promoting non-Catholic ideas here.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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.
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!
-
Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?
-
Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?
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.
-
Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?
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.
-
Maybe you've read too much Rahner and too little of orthodox writings. You seem to only quote formerly censured theologians ... Why is that?
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:
-
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:
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/
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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...”
-
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.
-
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".
-
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".
There once was an idiot who did his own theology, saw things that were not really there, and due to his stupid pride he never woke up to see what a fool he has been.
-
To BOders, the councils teach in parables so only theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof" means BOD has been defined.
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." Yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
-
To BOders, the councils teach in parables so only theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof" means BOD has been defined.
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." Yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
How do you explain away all the catechisms?
-
To BOders, the councils teach in parables so only theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof" means BOD has been defined.
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." Yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
How do you explain away all the catechisms?
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes. That's called an end run. You don't have the mental wherewithal to answer any of the questions that come from directly reading clear language Dogmas.
-
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.
-
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.
The Baltimore Catechism is an example of a catechism that clearly contradicts dogma (when it states that there are three Baptisms). Catechisms are not infallible docuмents.
-
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.
How would you know?
You do not even believe what dogmas are, so why would you even say that catechisms don't contradict them?
-
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.
You deny all the clear dogmas on EENS and baptism, and the Catechism of Trent in your belief that people can be saved by baptism of desire of the catechumen, implicit baptism of desire, and implicit faith.
You deny all those clear dogmas and the entire catechism of Trent, for just one line in The Catechism of Trent which ends in "will avail them to grace and righteousness". From there you go on to deny EVERYTHING in your belief in salvation by Implicit Faith.
You don't have a leg to stand on. The fact is, like this thread shows, you can't even complain about Vatican II:
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally. Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.
If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.
You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).
So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS. You are either schismatics of heretics or both.
-
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.
The Baltimore Catechism is an example of a catechism that clearly contradicts dogma (when it states that there are three Baptisms). Catechisms are not infallible docuмents.
Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
-
Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
Do you have an auto-reply program that just posts this same tired nonsense ad nauseam?
-
Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
Do you have an auto-reply program that just posts this same tired nonsense ad nauseam?
Ladi, YOU can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
-
Except you can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
Do you have an auto-reply program that just posts this same tired nonsense ad nauseam?
Ladi, YOU can't provide one single catechism that explains things the way you understand them. This means you didn't learn from a cathechism, nor any other approved teacher.
Except you can't yourself re:Vatican II
-
You deny ALL the clear dogmas using "catechisms" of which you never any quotes.
Catechisms do not contradict dogmas. Many catechisms have been clearly quoted, so you're either blind or just to stupid to realize what people have been posting for days, months, years and even decades now.
You deny all the clear dogmas on EENS and baptism, and the Catechism of Trent in your belief that people can be saved by baptism of desire of the catechumen, implicit baptism of desire, and implicit faith.
You deny all those clear dogmas and the entire catechism of Trent, for just one line in The Catechism of Trent which ends in "will avail them to grace and righteousness". From there you go on to deny EVERYTHING in your belief in salvation by Implicit Faith.
You don't have a leg to stand on. The fact is, like this thread shows, you can't even complain about Vatican II:
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally. Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.
If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.
You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).
So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS. You are either schismatics of heretics or both.
-
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
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 pres-bytero 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".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized
*“Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A))
“Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. […] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III,
3, “Of those who are not baptized”)
Douay Catechism (by Henry Tuberville, D.D. 1649)
“Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
“A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.”
Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."
Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives
If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.
-
The title of this thread is "False BOD is Foundational to Vat II".
It is undeniable that because of people like you SJB (and, LOT, Ambrose and the other Heroin BODers) that we had Vatican II. You have nothing to complain about, as Ladislaus said:
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally. Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.
If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.
You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).
So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS. You are either schismatics of heretics or both.
-
The title of this thread is "False BOD is Foundational to Vat II".
It is undeniable that because of people like you SJB (and, LOT, Ambrose and the other Heroin BODers) that we had Vatican II.
You're just an idiot setting himself in opposition to Popes and Doctors of the Church, ALL catechisms and other Catholic sources.
-
You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).
So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS. You are either schismatics of heretics or both.
-
Dear Geremia,
The SSPX and your signature Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, both formally teach that anyone can be saved in any false religion, therefore, they would be hypocrites for criticizing JPII for teaching the same.
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally. Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.
If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.
You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).
Abp. 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...”
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
_______________________________________________
From Garrigou-LaGrange's book Life Everlasting, under the chapter "The Number of The Elect" is the following:
..."Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of promitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even for pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace."
-
The title of this thread is "False BOD is Foundational to Vat II".
It is undeniable that because of people like you SJB (and, LOT, Ambrose and the other Heroin BODers) that we had Vatican II. You have nothing to complain about, as Ladislaus said:
I am throwing my hat in with Bowler and Ladislaus on this one.
-
I'm OD'd on BOD.
-
This was the full quote I was trying to post, but it got cut-off for some reason:
Ladislaus-
“At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally. Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.
If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.
You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).
So, LoT, SJB, and Ambrose, et al. you are NOT CATHOLICS. You are either schismatics of heretics or both.”
-
My point was and is that you cannot promote the salvation of non-Catholics and oppose Vatican II at the same time. If you reject Vatican II while maintaining the same principles that are behind Vatican II, then you are schismatic.
You, Xavier, are clearly a schismatic since you refuse full Communion with what you believe to be the Holy See despite having no theological reason to do so. Your position is no different than that of the FSSP and yet you continue to adhere to the SSPX.
-
Wow. I doubt there is a single effeminate feelings oriented Pouche type Member of this Forum, Man or Woman, whom Ladislaus has managed not to attack or insult as Idiotic or as Non-Catholic/Schismatic/Heretic etc etc.
There, that's better.
If the shoe fits, wear it. XavierSem - Reputation: +354/-599, even worse than Pouche, as voted by CI members.
-
I'm OD'd on BOD.
I did not repost to dredge up a discussion about the theological speculation of BOD (or BOID) per se, but to ask how anyone can maintain that Vatican II is in error/heretical while also holding the BOD/BOID positions.
-
I did not repost to dredge up a discussion about the theological speculation of BOD (or BOID) per se, but to ask how anyone can maintain that Vatican II is in error/heretical while also holding the BOD/BOID positions.
That is clearly understood. Don't lose a second thinking that it was not understood. XavierSem only had one modus operandi, parroting the same lines. Just ignore him, everyone else does.
-
Read the thread title, Xavier. I’m talking about the “false” BoD that equates to religious indifferentism and a false ecclesiology, you know, like the one you keep peddling which holds that Prots are “real Christians” and separated brethren. Did you read that in Valtorta?
You have never given anything close to a legitimate explanation about why you don’t go with the FSSP. Were you given the boot from their seminary?
-
My point was and is that you cannot promote the salvation of non-Catholics and oppose Vatican II at the same time. If you reject Vatican II while maintaining the same principles that are behind Vatican II, then you are schismatic.
You, Xavier, are clearly a schismatic since you refuse full Communion with what you believe to be the Holy See despite having no theological reason to do so. Your position is no different than that of the FSSP and yet you continue to adhere to the SSPX.
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.”
. . .
Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
New St. Alphonsus Quotes on Implicit BOD - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-st-alphonsus-quotes-on-implicit-bod/msg737531/#msg737531)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-st-alphonsus-quotes-on-implicit-bod/msg737531/#msg737531)
So I guess St. Alphonsus would accept Vatican II, right? Or would he be a schismatic? What do you think? :confused: :popcorn:
-
I did not repost to dredge up a discussion about the theological speculation of BOD (or BOID) per se, but to ask how anyone can maintain that Vatican II is in error/heretical while also holding the BOD/BOID positions.
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.”
. . .
Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
New St. Alphonsus Quotes on Implicit BOD - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-st-alphonsus-quotes-on-implicit-bod/msg737531/#msg737531)
So I take it that St. Alphonsus would not hold V2 to be at least in error?
-
So I take it that St. Alphonsus would not hold V2 to be at least in error?
I do not know what you mean by connecting that quote of St. Alphonsus Ligouri with your question, since you are not clear on how you interpret that quote. Are you interpreting that quote to mean that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in salvation of infidels by implicit faith? Are you confusing the theory of salvation by implicit baptism of desire with salvation by implicit faith? One must speak very precise and clear on this matter of salvation of non-Catholics because the sophisms from the false BODers are legion.
-
So I take it that St. Alphonsus would not hold V2 to be at least in error?
Now you too are conflating BoD proper with the extension of BoD to those who don’t profess the faith? We’re not talking about classical BoD here, such as would apply to catechumens but to the extended BoD that effectively causes all manner of non-Catholic to be within the Church. I really don’t know how many more times I have to explain this.
:facepalm:
-
Now you too are conflating BoD proper with the extension of BoD to those who don’t profess the faith? We’re not talking about classical BoD here, such as would apply to catechumens but to the extended BoD that effectively causes all manner of non-Catholic to be within the Church. I really don’t know how many more times I have to explain this.
:facepalm:
Classical BOD?
The St. Alphonsus quotes indicate that he accepted an "implicit BOD" and in one of the quotes he indicated an "infidel" could be justified as follows:
In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.
You call that "classical BOD"? That fits almost like a glove with JPII's catechism on BOD.
So I'll ask you again in light of MCollier's comment, since you address my response to him and won't address my response to you.
MCollier wrote:
how anyone can maintain that Vatican II is in error/heretical while also holding the BOD/BOID positions.
St. Alphonsus believed in BOD/BOID and even wrote that an "infidel" could be saved by an "implicit BOD" with love of God and a desire to do His will. He held a BOD/BOID position.
So, again: this statement would mean that you believe St. Alphonsus would not hold V2 at least in "error," or he's as stupid and inconsistent as the others who maintain or hold BOD/BOID positions while also holding V2 to be in error/heretical. Which is it?
Btw, how does St. Alphonsus's "implicit BOD" work out with your "necessity" of the sacraments?
DR
-
The St. Alphonsus quotes indicate that he accepted an "implicit BOD" and in one of the quotes he indicated an "infidel" could be justified as follows:
St. Alphonsus believed in BOD/BOID and even wrote that an "infidel" could be saved by an "implicit BOD" with love of God and a desire to do His will. He held a BOD/BOID position.
Yep, you confuse the theory of salvation by Implicit baptism of desire of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, with the theory of salvation by Implicit faith in a god that rewards, which St.Alphonsus totally rejected. You need to go back to your studies.
St. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected the theory of salavation by implicit faith, the theory that someone can be saved who has no belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. (As a matter of fact ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints also reject that belief, so does the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, and the Council Trent)
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition
-
Classical BOD?
The St. Alphonsus quotes indicate that he accepted an "implicit BOD" and in one of the quotes he indicated an "infidel" could be justified as follows:
Justified, not saved. Several theologians during his time believed infidels could be justified but not saved. St. Alphonsus himself clearly taught that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. We've gone through this, but evidently you weren't paying attention. Xavier has already admitted this here. He himself cited DeLugo regarding the various permutations (he listed 5) between justification and salvation held by theologians around his time. As you can see, your citation refers to justification, while the ones cited by LastTradhican refer to salvation. Theologians during the time of St. Alphonsus distinguished between the two.
Salvation by Rewarder God theory was also rejected by the Holy Office.
Quite seriously, I think that you're mentally unstable, having gone from full-blown Dimondite to now pushing implicit faith theory. Either that or you're trolling.
If that's what you believe, then join the Conciliar Church already.
-
Justified, not saved. Several theologians during his time believed infidels could be justified but not saved. St. Alphonsus himself clearly taught that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. We've gone through this, but evidently you weren't paying attention. Xavier has already admitted this here. He himself cited DeLugo regarding the various permutations (he listed 5) between justification and salvation held by theologians around his time. As you can see, your citation refers to justification, while the ones cited by LastTradhican refer to salvation. Theologians during the time of St. Alphonsus distinguished between the two.
Salvation by Rewarder God theory was also rejected by the Holy Office.
Quite seriously, I think that you're mentally unstable, having gone from full-blown Dimondite to now pushing implicit faith theory. Either that or you're trolling.
If that's what you believe, then join the Conciliar Church already.
So you are arguing for a distinction between justification and salvation, which of course are different. How? In the context of our discussion, this is the relevant distinction: one may be justified and nonetheless sin after justification, lose that justification, and be damned if not restored. But, more importantly in light of St. Alphonsus's quotes is the fact that if one dies in a state of justification they are saved. Nothing beyond justification is necessary for salvation. Period.
I went back to look at all of the relevant threads. Xavier responded quite capably to your justification v. salvation argument here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-st-alphonsus-quotes-on-implicit-bod/msg738616/#msg738616
As is what has become your usual fashion, sensing a corner approaching, you walked away.
He asked this relevant question, still unanswered by you:
But do you agree that in justification a person is made a child of God, an heir to heaven, a temple of God, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, in the State of Sanctifying Grace, or do you understand something else by "Justification"?
This is the doctrine of Trent, as the Dimonds have noted as well.
I know St. Alphonsus indicated it was the common opinion that explicit faith in the Trinity was required for salvation, and I believe he supported that position. But, as you acknowledge, he also indicated an "infidel" could be justified. I doubt the saint and doctor was ever asked to reconcile those views, and am unaware of him having addressed any apparent contradiction. It is worth more research and study, which I will certainly do. But is clear that he said, after Trent, that an infidel could be justified. And as clear that justification can lead to salvation if one dies in that state - nothing else being required.
Quite seriously, I think that you're mentally unstable, having gone from full-blown Dimondite to now pushing implicit faith theory. Either that or you're trolling.
If that's what you believe, then join the Conciliar Church already.
:laugh2:
There you go again, like a heroin addict reaching for the needle when challenged. I simply asked you a question. I do not embrace "implicit faith theory," nor "implicit BOD." But if doctors and saints of the Church taught it, I must listen, and surely at a minimum I must refrain from pulling the trigger of calling someone who holds that view an "idiot, heretic, schismatic" - you know, those terms you are so found of.
Some of us believe that that's what study, reflection, questioning, prayer, etc. can and should do: lead one to embrace truths not formerly embraced, and reject false notions previously held.
Maybe you should try it sometime, and kick your "heroin" habit.
-
And here's another one for you, Lad.
It is clear St. Alphonsus believed that an "implicit BOD" would suffice for justification. Trent clearly says justification requires the sacrament of baptism, or desire for it. Note, Trent is not talking about salvation there, but justification.
You seem to at least acknowledge that St. Alphonus believed an "infidel" could be justified by love of God and a desire to please him - with an implicit BOD. Trent says that justification can only happen two ways: by the sacrament, or desire for it.
So St. Alphonsus was clearly wrong about justification - if it meant a catechumen with explicit desire for the sacrament, your "classical BOD." He was another "BODer" who didn't hold to the limited, classical BOD.
I wonder if he was wrong about salvation also, and the necessity of the sacraments. For him to uphold the necessity of the sacraments - according to you - he would have to have required anyone, to be saved, to explicitly desire the sacrament of baptism, or else he would be a heretical denier of the necessity of the sacraments.
But we have already read that he believed in an implicit BOD.
Hmmm. I will do more reading and study.
-
But, more importantly in light of St. Alphonsus's quotes is the fact that if one dies in a state of justification they are saved. Nothing beyond justification is necessary for salvation. Period.
There is a major difference between a justified CATHOLIC and a justified non-catholic...the baptismal mark, which as many of the Church Fathers distinguish, is the difference between a) saved and enjoying the beatific vision or 2) avoiding the pains of hell. Limbo, the middle ground, is where unbaptized, but justified people would go (if such people exist, which we don't know).
-
You seem to at least acknowledge that St. Alphonus believed an "infidel" could be justified by love of God and a desire to please him - with an implicit BOD.
No, no, no. That is NOT the definition of St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD". What you wrote is the modernist, heretical definition of "implicit faith". St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD" means the person actually, 100% desires baptism (and 100% knows what it is) and wants to join the Church. They have just not yet expressed this verbally (i.e. explicitly).
.
What you wrote (i.e. "love of God" and a "desire to please Him") is non-specific, hazy, heretical goup. I'm not saying you believe it, but just saying it's anti-catholic.
.
So St. Alphonsus was clearly wrong about justification - if it meant a catechumen with explicit desire for the sacrament, your "classical BOD." He was another "BODer" who didn't hold to the limited, classical BOD.
St Alphonsus simply said that a "Classical BOD'er" could be justified if his desire was unspoken. St Alphonsus did not change the definition or requirements for Trent BOD (i.e. Trent is very clear that a desire to enter the Church is necessary, not a simple "desire to please God").
.
But we have already read that he believed in an implicit BOD.
The phrase "implicit BOD" was co-opted by the Modernists in the 1800s and re-defined into "implicit faith". A desire to enter the church is NECESSARY for one to have "classical BOD". The modernists wanted to create universal salvation (i.e. V2 style) so they re-defined the word "implicit" to mean something contrary to the english language. "Implicit faith" is heretical and totally contrary to Trent.
-
No, no, no. That is NOT the definition of St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD". What you wrote is the modernist, heretical definition of "implicit faith". St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD" means the person actually, 100% desires baptism (and 100% knows what it is) and wants to join the Church. They have just not yet expressed this verbally (i.e. explicitly).
St Alphonsus simply said that a "Classical BOD'er" could be justified if his desire was unspoken. St Alphonsus did not change the definition or requirements for Trent BOD (i.e. Trent is very clear that a desire to enter the Church is necessary, not a simple "desire to please God").
The phrase "implicit BOD" was co-opted by the Modernists in the 1800s and re-defined into "implicit faith". A desire to enter the church is NECESSARY for one to have "classical BOD". The modernists wanted to create universal salvation (i.e. V2 style) so they re-defined the word "implicit" to mean something contrary to the english language. "Implicit faith" is heretical and totally contrary to Trent.
If he does not understands that by now, it is because he does not want to.
-
I'm not interested in debating this endlessly for every new person that jumps on the "non-Catholics are saved" bandwagon.
If you believe that, then go for it. But then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, then non-Catholics can be in the Church, and therefore you can make haste back to the Novus Ordo, since you no longer have any theological justification for rejecting any of the Vatican II teachings, certainly not enough to justify severing communion with the Holy See.
-
There you go again, like a heroin addict reaching for the needle when challenged.
No, it's not about being challenged. I grow extremely weary of re-hashing the same stuff over and over and over and over again. All this stuff has been addressed dozens of times on threads all over CathInfo. We just finished a long round with Xavier, and now here you go immediately afterwards. I'm just tired of it. If you're exploring and researching, then do it yourself, and maybe just go through the old threads on the subject.
I simply take the Church Fathers and the Church's dogmatic definitions at face value. I'm not interested in the hundreds of pages that have been spilled on explaining how these dogmas mean the exact opposite of what they say. If you want to believe that there's salvation outside the Catholic Church, then go for it.
I have half a mind to simply write up a 200-page docuмent with all my responses and then just paste them in every time someone like you restarts everything.
-
Reading material for your research:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/faith-in-christ-necessary-for-salvation-dogma/
Even XavierSem agrees that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
-
I do not embrace "implicit faith theory," nor "implicit BOD."
Then you write like a schizophrenic, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
-
Reading material for your research:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/faith-in-christ-necessary-for-salvation-dogma/
Even XavierSem agrees that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
Not sure this will change things in light of the specific context of the discussion - specific quotes and statements of St. Alphonsus - but thanks.
-
No, no, no. That is NOT the definition of St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD". What you wrote is the modernist, heretical definition of "implicit faith". St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD" means the person actually, 100% desires baptism (and 100% knows what it is) and wants to join the Church. They have just not yet expressed this verbally (i.e. explicitly).
.
What you wrote (i.e. "love of God" and a "desire to please Him") is non-specific, hazy, heretical goup. I'm not saying you believe it, but just saying it's anti-catholic.
.
St Alphonsus simply said that a "Classical BOD'er" could be justified if his desire was unspoken. St Alphonsus did not change the definition or requirements for Trent BOD (i.e. Trent is very clear that a desire to enter the Church is necessary, not a simple "desire to please God").
.
The phrase "implicit BOD" was co-opted by the Modernists in the 1800s and re-defined into "implicit faith". A desire to enter the church is NECESSARY for one to have "classical BOD". The modernists wanted to create universal salvation (i.e. V2 style) so they re-defined the word "implicit" to mean something contrary to the english language. "Implicit faith" is heretical and totally contrary to Trent.
Do you even read the posts you comment on?
I'm quoting St. Alphonsus and specific quotes by him, which no one seems to want to address, but run off to something else. For example, when I wrote "love of God" and "desire to please him," I'm not providing that thought or language, but quoting St. Alphonsus.
Please focus. I'm not interested in what "Modernists" do - again, I'm focusing on what St. Alphonsus said.
Focus.
-
Then you write like a schizophrenic, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Same advice to you as Pax . . . focus.
I'm quoting St. Alphonsus for crying out loud, or referring to Trent.
Follow the discussion and please don't hit your Feeneyite "default" modernist, implicit BOD line/response. Read the St. Alphonsus quotes, what he said, and which I'm discussing.
Thank you.
-
I'm not interested in debating this endlessly for every new person that jumps on the "non-Catholics are saved" bandwagon.
If you believe that, then go for it. But then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, then non-Catholics can be in the Church, and therefore you can make haste back to the Novus Ordo, since you no longer have any theological justification for rejecting any of the Vatican II teachings, certainly not enough to justify severing communion with the Holy See.
Join the focus line behind Pax and Tradhican.
Deal with the St. Alphonsus's quotes and relevant questions in light of, which you apparently won't address. I'm not looking for a long dissertation on BOD, but a discussion of specific St. Alphonsus quotes and their significance in light of Trent, etc.
I realize that's a problem for you, but still . . . don't stuff another straw man, like the ones you love to burn.
-
I'm focusing on what St. Alphonsus said.
You're the one that needs to focus. It's been pointed out, about 10x in the last month, on various St Alphonsus threads, that he said contradictory things. You've posted on most of these threads, so either you didn't read the whole thread or you didn't understand it.
.
One one hand, St Alphonsus agrees with Trent, St Thomas and the Church Fathers...on the other hand, he explains salvation very sentimentally and modernistically. It's obvious which quotes are orthodox. There's no need to discuss it further.
-
Lad,
For example, you never touched the fact that St. Alphonsus clearly believed in implicit BOD. Even if he believed explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was needed for salvation, that has nothing to do with the sacraments.
What does his belief in implicit BOD do to your view about the necessity of the sacraments, since someone can have an implicit BOD without being conscious of the sacrament, of which he is unaware - as St. Alphonsus notes.
It's a huge problem for you if St. Alphonsus meets your definition of a heretic who denies what you describe as "the necessity of the sacraments," which is de fide . . . but in what sense? St. Alphonsus clearly doesn't hold your sense.
I understand this is a huge problem for you, but if you can't address maybe you should rethink a view that results in St. Alphonsus = heretic.
-
You're the one that needs to focus. It's been pointed out, about 10x in the last month, on various St Alphonsus threads, that he said contradictory things. You've posted on most of these threads, so either you didn't read the whole thread or you didn't understand it.
.
One one hand, St Alphonsus agrees with Trent, St Thomas and the Church Fathers...on the other hand, he explains salvation very sentimentally and modernistically. It's obvious which quotes are orthodox. There's no need to discuss it further.
See my last post to Lad. I don't think he ever contradicted himself on implicit BOD, for example. Where is the necessity for the sacraments with implicit BOD?
Also, I haven't had the time to go through all the quotes that Tradhican posted from St. Alphonsus but I do not believe there is a contradiction there necessarily.
-
What does his belief in implicit BOD do to your view about the necessity of the sacraments,
It does nothing. It means St Alphonsus (in this quote) was contrary to Trent, which all of you love to quote. If you go bother reading Trent's entire chapter on justification, it explains VERY well, what is required.
-
It does nothing. It means St Alphonsus (in this quote) was contrary to Trent, which all of you love to quote. If you go bother reading Trent's entire chapter on justification, it explains VERY well, what is required.
St. Alphonsus being "contrary" to Trent - which came before him - means nothing?
Only because you refuse to face squarely what it means: a saint and doctor of the Church held a view that - according to you and Lad - denies a dogma of the faith, i.e. the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
And despite that . . . he was not only canonized, but declared a "doctor" of the faith, of which there are very few.
But that won't make you blink if it requires you to take your eye off your Feeneyite ball, will it, Pax?
-
St. Alphonsus being "contrary" to Trent - which came before him - means nothing?
Look, dude, you have a reading comprehension problem, which is half the battle, when it comes to debating with you.
.
You asked what does St Alphonsus' view DO to the view of necessity of the sacraments. I responded: "It does nothing", which grammatically refers to "the necessity of the sacraments". In other words, Ladislaus'/Trent's view of the necessity of the sacraments DOES NOT CHANGE, just because St Alphonsus says something different. A doctrinal council > a saint...all day, everyday and twice on sundays.
.
Only because you refuse to face squarely what it means: a saint and doctor of the Church held a view that - according to you and Lad - denies a dogma of the faith, i.e. the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
Yes, sometimes he 100% agreed with Trent, and sometimes he didn't. He contradicted himself (or corrected himself). A canonization does not mean the person is infallible, as no person is.
.
And despite that . . . he was not only canonized, but declared a "doctor" of the faith, of which there are very few.
The fact that you think this is some kind of important point, means you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Look, dude, you have a reading comprehension problem, which is half the battle, when it comes to debating with you.
.
You asked what does St Alphonsus' view DO to the view of necessity of the sacraments. I responded: "It does nothing", which grammatically refers to "the necessity of the sacraments".
:)
Ok. Let's try it this way: what does the upshot of St. Alphonsus's view of an implicit BOD mean as to what he thought about the necessity of the sacraments?
Well, if he believed in implicit BOD - and there is no indication he didn't or that he retracted - then it means he did not believe in the necessity of the sacraments, which (according to you or Lad) requires either the reception of the sacrament or an explicit desire for the sacrament, of which one must be aware, a de fide doctrine.
It means either St. Alphonsus was a manifest heretic scattering heresy in his writings and teachings as bishop, a "saint and doctor" who denied de fide dogma of the Church which was solemnly defined before his heresy, or else you and Lad are wrong.
That may mean "nothing" to you - which is sad, very sad, either way.
-
:Duplicate
-
Ok. Let's try it this way: what does the upshot of St. Alphonsus's view of an implicit BOD mean as to what he thought about the necessity of the sacraments?
It means that in a few of his quotes, he contradicted St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent. Therefore, he was wrong.
.
Well, if he believed in implicit BOD - and there is no indication he didn't or that he retracted - then it means he did not believe in the necessity of the sacraments,
Yes, in reading these short, "sound bite" comments from St Alphonsus, it seems he contradicted Trent. Except most intelligent people write VOLUMES on certain topics (salvation being a common, complex topic), so to give the proper benefit of the doubt to a doctor the Church, we must presume that St Alphonsus' views can't be summarized into 3 sentences.
.
which (according to you or Lad) requires either the reception of the sacrament or an explicit desire for the sacrament, of which one must be aware, a de fide doctrine.
This has nothing to do with Ladislaus or I. It has to do with what St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent clearly wrote.
.
It means either St. Alphonsus was a manifest heretic scattering heresy in his writings and teachings as bishop, a "saint and doctor" who denied de fide dogma of the Church which was solemnly defined before his heresy, or else you and Lad are wrong.
If you believe that the "sound bite" quote of St Alphonsus is correct, then you would agree with V2.
.
I believe that 1) it isn't his full view or 2) he was simply wrong. I believe in the consistent views handed down by St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent.
.
Either way, according to your "gotcha test", a Doctor of the Church is in error.
3 Doctors + Trent vs 1 Doctor + V2.
-
Same advice to you as Pax . . . focus.
I'm quoting St. Alphonsus for crying out loud, or referring to Trent.
Follow the discussion and please don't hit your Feeneyite "default" modernist, implicit BOD line/response. Read the St. Alphonsus quotes, what he said, and which I'm discussing.
Nothing to focus on, you are at the very least a poor communicator. I have no time to play child's games. Unless you spell out clearly what you want to say, there is no point in continuing this charade.
-
.
I believe that 1) it isn't his full view or 2) he was simply wrong.
And we know you won't bother to find out if it was 1).
And if it's 2) he was not only wrong but a heretic . . . poor Alphonsus.
Oh well. The Feenyite ball is in the air . . .
Adios.
-
I have no time to play child's games . . . there is no point in continuing this charade.
Success: we do agree on something.
-
Decem(Ir)rational,
If St Alphonsus is correct (or, your understanding of him), then Trent is wrong.
.
If St Alphonsus is correct, then St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and many Church Fathers are wrong.
.
If St Alphonsus is correct, then where is the historical, consistent, Traditional record to back him up? Doctrines do not appear out of thin air...they MUST be traced to Apostolic Times. So where is the link, across 17 centuries?
.
The contrary view, that of explicit desire for baptism and to enter the church, is readily shown and quite consistent, especially in Trent.
.
St Alphonsus died during the time of the French Revolution and in the height of Protestantism. Are you saying he was immune from all errors of the day? Is any human soul immune from the errors of his day? No
-
Decem, you're completely (and it would seem, deliberately, since this has been pointed out) distorting the opinion of St. Alphonsus. St. Alphonsus, as quoted by Last Trad, and even by pro-BoD-zealot XavierSem, clearly held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. In terms of his allowing for Rewarder God theory to be considered a possible opinion (that is what the term "probable" means in theology, that it has some possibility of being true) was simply wrong and contradicts a ruling from the Holy Office about which he appeared to be unaware. This requirement for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were taught and believed universally by the entire Church for nearly 1600 years, and if that doesn't qualify as an infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing as an infallible teaching of the OUM. Of course, the infallibility of the OUM had not yet been defined, which is why he was mistaken on this point. So he was mistaken in not denouncing Rewarder God theory as heresy. It is in fact heresy by every theological standard. It is not heresy not to assign the proper theological note to something ... just a mistake. He didn't actually believe in Rewarder God theory himself.
As I've pointed out a dozen times now, it is Rewarder God theory which I denounce as heretical. I have never denounced BoD as heretical, but rather its false extension to infidels, those without explicit Catholic faith.
So you distort the teaching of St. Alphonsus, and distort my position at the same time. Even XavierSem acknowledges what St. Alphonsus taught about this matter, and agrees that the requirement of explicit faith in these core mysteries is definable as dogma.
-
There's no doubt that St. Alphonsus' thinking on this subject was extremely muddled, for lots of reasons, owing in part to the undue influence of the Jesuit DeLugo. It was the Jesuits primarily pushing Rewarder God theory, and various flavors of semi-Pelagianism.
-
Of course, we see how Decem has dragged this thread completely off-topic.
What is being discussed is the contention that those who do not have the Catholic faith can be saved, that the practitioners of false religions can be saved. This thread has precious little to do with Baptism of Desire proper.
Every single error attributed to Vatican II by Traditional Catholics, however, can be directly traced back to the ecclesiology that results from this proposition.
If non-Catholics can be saved, then, since there can be no salvation outside the Church, it follows that non-Catholics can be in the Church. If that's the case, then V2 subsistence ecclesiology is actually a very profound expression of this reality.
Go ahead an name an error of Vatican II, Decem, that justifies your rejection of what had all the appearances of having been an Ecuмenical Council.
-
Decem, you're completely (and it would seem, deliberately, since this has been pointed out) distorting the opinion of St. Alphonsus. St. Alphonsus, as quoted by Last Trad, and even by pro-BoD-zealot XavierSem, clearly held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. In terms of his allowing for Rewarder God theory to be considered a possible opinion (that is what the term "probable" means in theology, that it has some possibility of being true) was simply wrong and contradicts a ruling from the Holy Office about which he appeared to be unaware. This requirement for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were taught and believed universally by the entire Church for nearly 1600 years, and if that doesn't qualify as an infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing as an infallible teaching of the OUM. Of course, the infallibility of the OUM had not yet been defined, which is why he was mistaken on this point. So he was mistaken in not denouncing Rewarder God theory as heresy. It is in fact heresy by every theological standard. It is not heresy not to assign the proper theological note to something ... just a mistake. He didn't actually believe in Rewarder God theory himself.
As I've pointed out a dozen times now, it is Rewarder God theory which I denounce as heretical. I have never denounced BoD as heretical, but rather its false extension to infidels, those without explicit Catholic faith.
So you distort the teaching of St. Alphonsus, and distort my position at the same time. Even XavierSem acknowledges what St. Alphonsus taught about this matter, and agrees that the requirement of explicit faith in these core mysteries is definable as dogma.
Ladislaus,
You could take all of that as true and it totally evades my questions, for both of which it could be granted that St. Alphonsus believed in the necessity of explicit faith (though, again, all we have so far are quotes from Last Trad that I do not believe necessitate that conclusion; the quotes could be explained consistently with his statement about justification for the infidel, which, in one of the questions you failed to respond to (and you failed to respond to Xavier in the thread I posted on this also), has implications regarding your salvation/justification distinction anyway. I even pointed out in a prior post the irrelevance of the explicit faith issue to these questions.
So here are the questions again (posts again). The first regarding justification (the internal quote is a question posed by Xavier that you walked away from), and the second the necessity of the sacraments:
1) St. Alphonsus's views on justification contrary to Trent (as understood by Lad)
Quote
But do you agree that in justification a person is made a child of God, an heir to heaven, a temple of God, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, in the State of Sanctifying Grace, or do you understand something else by "Justification"?
This is the doctrine of Trent, as the Dimonds have noted as well.
I know St. Alphonsus indicated it was the common opinion that explicit faith in the Trinity was required for salvation, and I believe he supported that position. But, as you acknowledge, he also indicated an "infidel" could be justified. I doubt the saint and doctor was ever asked to reconcile those views, and am unaware of him having addressed any apparent contradiction. It is worth more research and study, which I will certainly do. But is clear that he said, after Trent, that an infidel could be justified. And as clear that justification can lead to salvation if one dies in that state - nothing else being required.
********
It is clear St. Alphonsus believed that an "implicit BOD" would suffice for justification. Trent clearly says justification requires the sacrament of baptism, or desire for it. Note, Trent is not talking about salvation there, but justification.
You seem to at least acknowledge that St. Alphonus believed an "infidel" could be justified by love of God and a desire to please him - with an implicit BOD. Trent says that justification can only happen two ways: by the sacrament, or desire for it.
So St. Alphonsus was clearly wrong about justification - if it meant a catechumen with explicit desire for the sacrament, your "classical BOD." He was another "BODer" who didn't hold to the limited, classical BOD.
Of course, this goes beyond your obvious difference with St. Alphonsus about whether a desire for the sacrament, apart from the sacrament, could justify, since you read the "or" of Trent as indicating the sacrament and the desire for it are both required, not separated. But that disagreement would still apply if St. Alphonsus held to the requirement of an explicit desire for the sacrament as sufficing, a classical BOD; he doesn't. His view on justification, combined with his recognition of an implicit BOD, results in him being post-Trent a denying of the "necessity of the sacraments" according to you - see fuller below.
2) St. Alphonsus's views on implicit BOD renders him a denier of the necessity of the sacraments post-Trent (according to Lad)
Lad,
For example, you never touched the fact that St. Alphonsus clearly believed in implicit BOD. Even if he believed explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was needed for salvation, that has nothing to do with the sacraments.
What does his belief in implicit BOD do to your view about the necessity of the sacraments, since someone can have an implicit BOD without being conscious of the sacrament, of which he is unaware - as St. Alphonsus notes.
It's a huge problem for you if St. Alphonsus meets your definition of a heretic who denies what you describe as "the necessity of the sacraments," which is de fide . . . but in what sense? St. Alphonsus clearly doesn't hold your sense.
I understand this is a huge problem for you, but if you can't address maybe you should rethink a view that results in St. Alphonsus = heretic.
You've called others around here heretical deniers of the necessity of the sacraments if they allow for an implicit BOD; St. Alphonsus wears the same shoes according to your view as well.
Sure, we can disagree with saints and doctors, and we can think them wrong according to our view on this or that. For example, I have thought the view of the Church's indefectibility as expressed by theologians and even popes (and probably saints and doctors as well) wrong, but that doesn't make them heretics obviously for disagreeing with me, and my view wouldn't necessitate them being "heretics" as going against a supposed contrary dogma - the Church can teach error without implicating her indefectibility - I've never maintained that is dogma, obviously; it's simply a view of mine that could amount to me being a heretic if wrong, not them.
On the contrary, you have saints and doctors believing things contrary to Trent on justification and the necessity of the sacraments. Prescinding from any question regarding their wills, this amounts to them teaching and promoting what amounts to material heresy against dogmas of the Church.
I am perhaps only asking you to reflect on this and perhaps alter your view or reconsider. Do with it what you will, and have the last word.
DR
-
DecemRationis,
You can't view this topic simply as Trent vs Alphonsus. You're ignoring the previous 1500 yrs of saints/teaching.
-
You could take all of that as true and it totally evades my questions, for both of which it could be granted that St. Alphonsus believed in the necessity of explicit faith (though, again, all we have so far are quotes from Last Trad that I do not believe necessitate that conclusion;
Regarding the writers speculation that St. Alphonsus Ligouri was proponent of salvation of infidels by implicit faith in a god that rewards, nothing could be clearer than what I posted, St. Alphonsus himself directly answering the question, the writer above just chooses to ignore it. The rest is just his speculation. I think he is one of those types that thinks he is someone special who "cracked the code", discovered something no one else noticed. He certainly is the worst communicator I have ever encountered. A person that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith or implicit faith, that is trying to teach that St. Alphonsus was an implicit faither??
ST. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected the belief that someone can be saved who has no belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. (As a matter of fact ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints also reject that belief, and the Athanasian Creed spells it out, so does the Council Trent)
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
-
He certainly is the worst communicator I have ever encountered. A person that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith BOD or implicit faith, that is trying to teach that St. Alphonsus was an implicit faither??
There, that's better.
-
Most people don’t even understand the difference between implicit BOD and implicit faith...yet they want to debate. Very intellectually lazy.
-
If you're for "BOD" then you can't logically be against the Novus Ordo religion. Your "BOD" says the Novus Ordo is just as good of a way to Heaven than real (traditional) Catholicism.
-
Vatican II never says non-Christians can be saved as non-Christians. It says God will bring those who seek Him sincerely to that Faith without which it is impossible to please Him. This can be read in a way conformable to Tradition and Explicit Faith.
Ahhh...Eureka! I finally see the confusion/misinterpretation/false definition of Xavier and others. See, they are conflating "Explicit Faith" in the Incarnation/Trinity with "The Faith" of the Church. These are 2 totally separate things.
.
Xavier, we cannot please God unless we have "The Faith", meaning we have full membership in the Church. Explicit Faith in the Incarnation/Trinity is simply the absolute, minimum requirement for membership in the Church. To be a member in the Church you must have
1) at least, Explicit Faith
2) a desire for membership in the Church, which means:
a) Complete knowledge of Baptism, and a desire for it
b) understanding of and acceptance of obedience to, the pope
c) understanding that there is only one Church that Christ started - the Catholic one
.
Your heretical error is that you define "Explicit Faith" as simply belief in the Incarnation/Trinity, and leave out all the necessary requirements related to the Catholic Faith. You think that protestants can be saved without wanting the Church, the pope, or its rules. Total heresy!
.
-
Ahhh...Eureka! I finally see the confusion/misinterpretation/false definition of Xavier and others. See, they are conflating "Explicit Faith" in the Incarnation/Trinity with "The Faith" of the Church. These are 2 totally separate things.
Correct. That is why on another thread he referred to Protestants as "real Christians". I disputed that because for true faith it does not suffice to believe materially in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but this belief must be based on the correct rule of faith and therefore have the proper formal motive. That is why those Catholics who become heretics on any point lose the faith and membership in the Church, even when they continue to maintain a natural belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, because they implicitly reject the rule of faith upon from which all true faith derives (the origin of the expression that if you deny one dogma, you deny them all). With Protestants, even if they don't actively reject the rule of faith, they nevertheless do not have the right rule of faith, which can be missing negatively and does not require that they actively commit a sin against faith (another error promoted by Xavier).
I agree that the assertion that Protestants are "real Christians" is heretical.