Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Matthew on April 22, 2013, 05:24:37 PM
-
Feeneyism is an error. Period.
Why these people can't accept Catholic teaching on this matter is incomprehensible.
You paint with a broad brush my friend. You are then implying that you agree with the liberal teaching that someone can be saved by "their desire and longing for a God that rewards" (implicit faith),that someone can be saved who is not a catechumen, who does not desire to be a Catholic, and even hates Christ and His Church (a Jew, Muslim, Hindu).]
You don't understand the definition of BOD. No one has said that someone who hates Christ and His Church may be saved.
And again, this thread isn't about BOD.
Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”
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.”
ServusSpiritusSancti:
That sounds more like invincible ignorance.
-
There is no such thing as 'Feeneyism'.
-
ServusSpiritusSancti:
That sounds more like invincible ignorance.
Ah yes, invincible ignorance, yet another loophole.
However, the quotes do not say say they are invincible ignorant, therefore, they are not. Let's stick to what is actually said in the quotes.
It does however state a heresy, which no liberal would ever say directly like that, where it says "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion".
-
Feeneyism is an error. Period.
Why these people can't accept Catholic teaching on this matter is incomprehensible.
You paint with a broad brush my friend. You are then implying that you agree with the liberal teaching that someone can be saved by "their desire and longing for a God that rewards" (implicit faith),that someone can be saved who is not a catechumen, who does not desire to be a Catholic, and even hates Christ and His Church (a Jew, Muslim, Hindu).]
You don't understand the definition of BOD. No one has said that someone who hates Christ and His Church may be saved.
And again, this thread isn't about BOD.
Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”
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.”
ServusSpiritusSancti:
That sounds more like invincible ignorance.
How does a human being ever go to Hell? Is it even possible? And, if a non-Christian/non-Catholic makes "an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire," is it impossible that the Holy Spirit would reveal to such an individual the explicit truths of the Catholic faith? And, then what? Should that person reject those truths, would he/she fall from his/her "implicit state of baptism of desire?" And, once a person has some "implicit desire for baptism" is apostasy even possible? How does such an individual, as an act of his/her own free will, ever decide to get rid of his/her "implicit desire(s)"? Is such even possible?
It seems that "ignorance is bliss" here.
-
By the way, I challenge anyone to find a catechism prior to the 20th century that taught that:
" It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul "
" 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.”
and some more:
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
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.)
-
How does a human being ever go to Hell? Is it even possible? And, if a non-Christian/non-Catholic makes "an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire," is it impossible that the Holy Spirit would reveal to such an individual the explicit truths of the Catholic faith? And, then what? Should that person reject those truths, would he/she fall from his/her "implicit state of baptism of desire?" And, once a person has some "implicit desire for baptism" is apostasy even possible? How does such an individual, as an act of his/her own free will, ever decide to get rid of his/her "implicit desire(s)"? Is such even possible?
It seems that "ignorance is bliss" here.
With that, let us bring Predestination into the conversation.
Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
-
The Baptism of Desire is an explosive topic for discussion.
I had a debate on it with friends over beers last weekend and a few people got red faced and upset.
It would seem we could make a list of all the verifiable Church quotes on the issue and put them on a spreadsheet for analysis. The quotes with the most Church authority behind it would win, right ? Maybe it is not that simple?
Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
I wonder if anyone can verify this ?
As far as Bishop Fellay goes... I do not believe his interpretation of BOD below:
_________________________________________________________________
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.)
__________________________________________________________________
I listened to a lecture by Bp. Williamson where he said BOD had not been defined, but that it represnted the "Church mind".
Is this true? Then does it mean that BOD is currently not de fidei?
-
This topic is entitled Feenyism. I have read everything so far and no one( except moi) has even mentioned the term or the alleged author of the alleged heresy. The reason is that any paperwork summoning Fr Feeney to Rome or ex-communicating him for not complying is a fraud of some sort.
Actually Pope Pius XII responds to Fr Feeney & supports him in Humani Generis.
This is the historical record and verdict. :reporter:
-
Bowler,
So are you saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic?
-
Bowler,
So are you saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic?
He gave Holy Communion to the late Brother Francis:
http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html
-
Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
I wonder if anyone can verify this ?
Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.
-
Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
I wonder if anyone can verify this ?
Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't see how +ABL's view would jive with St. Francis Xavier or other missionary saints of antiquity?
As I understand it, St. Xavier personally Baptized over 3 million souls during his lifetime.
In Mexico, it was 9 million in just a few years. They had the desire and wanted a water Baptism.
It was reported that assistants had to hold-up the arms of the priests, so tired were they from Baptisms en masse.
(http://www.esteticas.unam.mx/revista_imagenes/inmediato/images/inm_constantino01_03.jpg)
-
Is this true? Then does it mean that BOD is currently not de fidei?[/color]
Of course it's not de fide. It's not even a real teaching at all, but an error that has grown out of proportion because of one self-contradictory statement of St. Augustine and another self-contradictory statement by St. Ambrose. That's where this whole thing comes from. NOT from Apostolic Tradition or the Deposit of Faith.
St. Augustine said "considering this over and over again", meaning BOD. If BOD is "unanimous Church teaching", what's there to "consider over and over" again? He wasn't even sure about it. The only time he ever taught it he used the Good Thief as evidence to support it, but later on he refuted what he himself had said about the good thief; he later said the good thief may have been baptized after all.
As for St. Ambrose, all there is is his funeral speech, and it's ambiguous at best and he even contradicts BOD in that very same speech!
Then out of nowhere, St. Thomas comes and gives BOD/BOB formal definitions (using St. Augustine and Ambrose as support) and voila, from then on they took off and every other theologian just refined the definition to make it look more professional and sophisticated and gave it his own "theological note".
That's another thing: theologians aren't even sure what this thing is. Some say de fide, others close to the faith, others certain, etc. Some "unanimous and universal teaching of the Church" indeed.
This whole thing is a tower of sand and a doctrine of man.
-
This is where self-proclaimed theologians fail utterly in their logic, since they ignore all the saintly theologians of the Middle Ages (pretending they were idiots to ignore Apostolic tradition) or Saint Alphonsus for that matter. I am inclined to think you believe anyone believing in BOB/BOD is a heretic. If that is so, I'm afraid you better get out of here, since people like that don't last long here!
-
Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
I wonder if anyone can verify this ?
Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't see how +ABL's view would jive with St. Francis Xavier or other missionary saints of antiquity?
As I understand it, St. Xavier personally Baptized over 3 million souls during his lifetime.
In Mexico, it was 9 million in just a few years. They had the desire and wanted a water Baptism.
It was reported that assistants had to hold-up the arms of the priests, so tired were they from Baptisms en masse.
(http://www.esteticas.unam.mx/revista_imagenes/inmediato/images/inm_constantino01_03.jpg)
Even St. Francis Xavier had to catechize them before they were baptized. There is no evidence that he baptized them right away!
-
This is where self-proclaimed theologians fail utterly in their logic, since they ignore all the saintly theologians of the Middle Ages (pretending they were idiots to ignore Apostolic tradition) or Saint Alphonsus for that matter. I am inclined to think you believe anyone believing in BOB/BOD is a heretic. If that is so, I'm afraid you better get out of here, since people like that don't last long here!
No, I do not believe that people who believe in explicit BOD/BOB for Catechumens, like the saints taught them, are heretics. The Dimond boys believe that, and they are wrong about that.
I'm not stupid. I'm well aware it is ridiculous to say they are heretical. However, i believe they are erroneous and i don't believe in them.
Oh but you consider yourself a theologian too.
Tell me, do you follow St. Alphonsus when he taught that "This is my Body" is all that is necessary for a valid consecration? Or do you follow St. Thomas where he taught that the BVM was not immaculately conceived?
-
Apples and oranges! BOD/BOD wasn't controverted till Fr. Feeney, despite assertions to the contrary. St. Thomas Aquinas was giving opinion on a controverted topic, as well as St. Alphonsus. You might as well say the Council of Trent was erroneous, since the Catechism and it clearly proclaims explicit BOD.
-
Apples and oranges! BOD/BOD wasn't controverted till Fr. Feeney, despite assertions to the contrary. St. Thomas Aquinas was giving opinion on a controverted topic, as well as St. Alphonsus. You might as well say the Council of Trent was erroneous, since the Catechism and it clearly proclaims explicit BOD.
Oh I see. How convenient!
My point is, they were clearly wrong, they made mistakes and blunders. And my point is that people like you pretend they are infallible and just because "they said it" we must believe it, no matter if they seem contradictory or if what they use as evidence is proven to be clearly erroneous.
And there are other Saints and Doctors who taught otherwise. What do you say to that?
Oh so now the Council of Trent and the Catechism "clearly proclaimed explicit BOD". Ha!
Explicit? THIS is explicit:
"If anyone shall say that baptism of the spirit, also known as baptism of desire, does not serve as a substitute for the sacrament of water baptism when this cannot be had in a life or death situation, and that baptism of blood, which is the shedding of one's blood while not being baptized yet, does not serve as a substitute for the sacrament as well, and that both baptism of desire and blood take away original sin and impart the indelible mark the sacrament imparts, and that one is made a subject of the Roman Pontiff when these two substitutes really and truly take place: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
That's explicit.
But what do we have? "...without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof..."
WOW. That sure is explicit.
But hold on a second. Does that mean that, if i desire baptism, i can do away without ever getting baptized with the sacrament? It says "or the desire thereof"! So that means NO ONE really needs to be baptized at all, because "the desire thereof" suffices!!!
And don't even get me started with the Catechism.
There is ONE ambiguous sentence which seems to teach BOD, without even talking about BOD! But there is statement after statement repeating the necessity of the SACRAMENT of baptism!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism ‐ Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154:
The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God(Jn. 3:5).”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176‐177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the
faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”
What a bunch of hogwash.
If anything, one should reject the very idea of BOD of desire from what the Catechism teaches!
Utter baloney. All the BOD/BOB defenders would have us believe that they are "de fide" and that the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent "explicitly taught them", when there is no specific and clear mention of them AT ALL.
Why wasn't there a specific section entitled "On baptism of spirit and blood" in the Council and in the Catechism?
What about subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
Think again and admit that you cannot force anyone to believe in this.
-
Apples and oranges! BOD/BOD wasn't controverted till Fr. Feeney, despite assertions to the contrary. St. Thomas Aquinas was giving opinion on a controverted topic, as well as St. Alphonsus. You might as well say the Council of Trent was erroneous, since the Catechism and it clearly proclaims explicit BOD.
Oh I see. How convenient!
My point is, they were clearly wrong, they made mistakes and blunders. And my point is that people like you pretend they are infallible and just because "they said it" we must believe it, no matter if they seem contradictory or if what they use as evidence is proven to be clearly erroneous.
And there are other Saints and Doctors who taught otherwise. What do you say to that?
Oh so now the Council of Trent and the Catechism "clearly proclaimed explicit BOD". Ha!
Explicit? THIS is explicit:
"If anyone shall say that baptism of the spirit, also known as baptism of desire, does not serve as a substitute for the sacrament of water baptism when this cannot be had in a life or death situation, and that baptism of blood, which is the shedding of one's blood while not being baptized yet, does not serve as a substitute for the sacrament as well, and that both baptism of desire and blood take away original sin and impart the indelible mark the sacrament imparts, and that one is made a subject of the Roman Pontiff when these two substitutes really and truly take place: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
That's explicit.
But what do we have? "...without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof..."
WOW. That sure is explicit.
But hold on a second. Does that mean that, if i desire baptism, i can do away without ever getting baptized with the sacrament? It says "or the desire thereof"! So that means NO ONE really needs to be baptized at all, because "the desire thereof" suffices!!!
And don't even get me started with the Catechism.
There is ONE ambiguous sentence which seems to teach BOD, without even talking about BOD! But there is statement after statement repeating the absolute necessity of the SACRAMENT of baptism!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism ‐ Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154:
The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God(Jn. 3:5).”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176‐177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the
faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”
What a bunch of hogwash.
If anything, one should reject the very idea of BOD of desire from what the Catechism teaches!
Utter baloney. All the BOD/BOB defenders would have us believe that they are "de fide" and that the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent "explicitly taught them", when there is no specific and clear mention of them AT ALL.
Why wasn't there a specific section entitled "On baptism of spirit and blood" in the Council and in the Catechism?
What about subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
Think again and admit that you cannot force anyone to believe in this.[/quote]
-
You ignore the "votum" part of the Council of Trent as all BOD deniers do, or if they pay attention to it, they twist the words to suit their arguments.
"the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".
Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”
-
I have no idea how it got double posted. Sorry for that.
-
You ignore the "votum" part of the Council of Trent as all BOD deniers do, or if they pay attention to it, they twist the words to suit their arguments.
"the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".
Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”
I already knew votum is the correct translation, but the majority still use desire.
And it's not even desire, it's spirit, originally.
So "the vow to receive baptism" would be the real deal.
-
Quo Vadis Petre,
You're right. I have been mistaken all along.
I had held for some time now that BOD/BOB were erroneous and that you could hold either position: water only or BOD/BOB, and that either position was alright as long as either side did not accuse one another of heresy/sin and the like.
But since you mentioned the votum part in Trent, it got me thinking. I had seen that correct translation very recently but didn't really think about it. But now i have.
I didn't really have any problems with bod/bob if they would in fact be true, and in the beginning i did believe in them, but i just thought there were some inconsistencies and contradictions, and i still think there are some, but i will no longer reject them or question them at all from now on.
I take back all that i said against them and i repent.
What i do not agree with though, is the whole "implicit faith and implicit bod" business and invincibly ignorant people being saved.
That, no Saint or Doctor ever taught. St. Thomas, St. Augustine, At. Alphonsus etc. they all taught explicit Faith and that you absolutely need to believe in and know of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and in fact they all taught against invincible ignorance.
-
Again a small snip from Who Shall Ascend?:
[Emphasis in original]
All those who do not believe in the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation present two main obstacles-we should say, two main subterfuges: the one is two alternate forms of Baptism, "baptism of desire," and "baptism of blood," the other, invincible ignorance. We shall discuss these in turn. Before doing so, however, we repeat that no postulate may in any way be allowed to compromise the absoluteness of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation; on the contrary, this doctrine must be our touchstone and point of reference.
We must study the following canons of the Decrees of the Council of Trent:
1. "If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost' [Jn. 3:5]., let him be anathema." (Canon 2, Session VII. Denz. 1615).
2. "If anyone say that Baptism is optional [liberum], and is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." (Canon 5. Ibid, 1618).
3. "In these words the description of the justification of the sinner is given as being a translation from that state, in which man is born the son of the first Adam, into the state of grace and 'adoption of sons' [Rom. 8:151 of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; which translation indeed cannot take place without the bath of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.] or his wish (as it is written: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' [Jn. 3:5])." (Sess. VI, Cap. 4. ¡bid, 1524).
The reader must take careful note of the three statements above. The difference between the first two and the third is quite great, and for very substantial reasons. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the third statement is mainly concerned with justification, while the first two insist that sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. . . . . . .
-
You ignore the "votum" part of the Council of Trent as all BOD deniers do, or if they pay attention to it, they twist the words to suit their arguments.
"the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".
Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”
We "Feeneyites" believe that the omnipotent Triune God would provide sacramental Baptism for that person in question. Consider "conditional Baptism". If the Church throughout the centuries believed that "desire alone" was truly sufficient, why baptize catechumens conditionally after they have died?
-
Quo Vadis Petre,
You're right. I have been mistaken all along.
I had held for some time now that BOD/BOB were erroneous and that you could hold either position: water only or BOD/BOB, and that either position was alright as long as either side did not accuse one another of heresy/sin and the like.
But since you mentioned the votum part in Trent, it got me thinking. I had seen that correct translation very recently but didn't really think about it. But now i have.
I didn't really have any problems with bod/bob if they would in fact be true, and in the beginning i did believe in them, but i just thought there were some inconsistencies and contradictions, and i still think there are some, but i will no longer reject them or question them at all from now on.
I take back all that i said against them and i repent.
What i do not agree with though, is the whole "implicit faith and implicit bod" business and invincibly ignorant people being saved.
That, no Saint or Doctor ever taught. St. Thomas, St. Augustine, At. Alphonsus etc. they all taught explicit Faith and that you absolutely need to believe in and know of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and in fact they all taught against invincible ignorance.
I doubt that anyone who really knows this subject would object to my stating that there are three schools of thought on so-called baptism of desire
1) the School of St. Augustine (Augustinian) - which says that no one predestined for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
2) the School of St. Thomas Aquinas (Thomists) that says that a catechumen or someone like a catechumen, someone who desires to be a Catholic, and believes at a minimum in the mysteries on the Incarnation amd the Holy Trinity, can be saved if they die before they can receive the sacrament and most important, are justified by God. That person will not go to Heaven, but to Purgatory.
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’” (Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905)
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection "It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation... provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him...”(Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire pg 55-56)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: "If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him."(Idem. pg 55)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 111, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: "If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."(Idem pg 55)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri was of the Thomist school. That is why he would teach that:
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)
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, 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, 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.”
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)
3) the School of Salamances - the theory that surfaced in the early 1600's , and went nowhere outside of the theological schools, till it resurfaced in the late 1800's, and was thereafter thrust upon the laity in the 20th century catechisms. This is what is referred to as the theory of implicit faith. It says that to be saved a person needs to have "a belief in a God that rewards", and to make an act of love which implicitly (implicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity) is equivalent to baptism of desire and there is no need to be baptized, or belong to the Catholic Church, or desire to be baptized, or to know about Jesus Christ (the Incarnation) and the Holy Trinity.
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.)
END
I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the Thomists as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in St. Thomas Aquinas's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. There are few pure Thomists left in the world. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with their incessant adamant fight against strict Augustinian EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD, because if they really believed STA's BOD they would be more horrified by the Implicit Faith'ers. You rarely find a Thomist or any traditionalist writing against implicit faith.
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
-
Quo Vadis Petre,
You're right. I have been mistaken all along.
I had held for some time now that BOD/BOB were erroneous and that you could hold either position: water only or BOD/BOB, and that either position was alright as long as either side did not accuse one another of heresy/sin and the like.
But since you mentioned the votum part in Trent, it got me thinking. I had seen that correct translation very recently but didn't really think about it. But now i have.
I didn't really have any problems with bod/bob if they would in fact be true, and in the beginning i did believe in them, but i just thought there were some inconsistencies and contradictions, and i still think there are some, but i will no longer reject them or question them at all from now on.
I take back all that i said against them and i repent.
What i do not agree with though, is the whole "implicit faith and implicit bod" business and invincibly ignorant people being saved.
That, no Saint or Doctor ever taught. St. Thomas, St. Augustine, At. Alphonsus etc. they all taught explicit Faith and that you absolutely need to believe in and know of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and in fact they all taught against invincible ignorance.
You are mistaken in thinking they taught against invincible ignorance; they didn't teach it, but they didn't condemn it. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns. I don't think any implcit BODer ever claimed it saves. What saves is having supernatural charity; the implicit BODer believes that it can be had in a person invincibly ignorant of the Church (yes, even for Buddhists, Muslims, etc.), but nonetheless, also there must be some explicit belief in some articles of the Faith (Jesus is God, etc.) and they must reject the errors when they are offered the Divine grace.
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
Who are you talking to, you supplied no quotes.
-
Oops. I was writing my reply to Jehanne when you replied to Mortalium.
BTW, bowler, it seems time and again, you ignore St. Alphonsus' theological treatises to his priests, when he says implicit desire is not wrong, and though he doesn't agree with implicit faith, doesn't condemn it!
-
You are mistaken in thinking they taught against invincible ignorance; they didn't teach it, but they didn't condemn it. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns. I don't think any implcit BODer ever claimed it saves. What saves is having supernatural charity; the implicit BODer believes that it can be had in a person invincibly ignorant of the Church (yes, even for Buddhists, Muslims, etc.),.
You are always stating your own personal opinions and thus clogging up threads. Do us a favor and quote an authority for what you write.
How could St. Augustine or St. Thomas condemn the theory of invincible ignorance if it did not exist in their time?
but nonetheless, also there must be some explicit belief in some articles of the Faith (Jesus is God, etc.) and they must reject the errors when they are offered the Divine grace.
There you go again! You just made that up. The theory of Implicit Faith does not require an explicit belief in Christ (the Incarnation) or the Trinity. Do you see any of the Implicit faith quotes that I posted saying what you say?
-
I was saying I believe in explicit faith myself, but don't condemn implicit faith.
-
Oops. I was writing my reply to Jehanne when you replied to Mortalium.
BTW, bowler, it seems time and again, you ignore St. Alphonsus' theological treatises to his priests, when he says implicit desire is not wrong, and though he doesn't agree with implicit faith, doesn't condemn it!
Speak clearly, you are mixing two things up, and creating a strawman.
The Thomist school teaches explicit and implicit baptism of desire, both require a desire to be a Catholic and a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. That is one thing, and that is what St. Alphonsus meant when he said that implicit desire for baptism is not wrong. AND he does condemn (teach against) implicit faith in the writings that I posted read them. He leaves no room for doubt that all who die ignorant of the mysteries of the faith are damned.
Implicit desire for baptism and Implicit faith are two different theories not having anything to do with each other. Read my long posting with quotes
-
Implicit faith is a new development into the nature of BOD. Unlike you, I don't see how it contradicts the necessity of baptism. It may be wrong, but I fail to see how it leads to false ecuмenism as you stated.
My apologies for mixing up implicit desire and implicit faith, but I will still hold fast and state the 1949 letter and Msgr. Fenton both uphold explicit faith and at the same time won't condemn implicit faith.
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
Are you saying that it is de fide that we, as Catholics, must believe that there are catechumens who have gone to Purgatory (or, are there at this very moment) because they had the misfortune to end their lives without sacramental Baptism, which they desired ("votum") and which the Triune God also desired for them?
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.
If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.
If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.
A catechumen who died could, within a short time frame (15 minutes?), be baptized conditionally -- "If thou art man, I baptize you..."
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.
If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.
A catechumen who died could, within a short time frame (15 minutes?), be baptized conditionally -- "If thou art man, I baptize you..."
Absolutely, since we don't know when the soul leaves the body.
-
You are mistaken in thinking they taught against invincible ignorance; they didn't teach it, but they didn't condemn it. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns.
You think that just because something isn't explicitly condemned or corrected it must therefore be acceptable or true. You are quite mistaken.
I don't think any implcit BODer ever claimed it saves. What saves is having supernatural charity;
Of course they do. They give a better chance of salvation and practically give Heaven away to these people.
So the just man "shall scarcely be saved" (1 Peter 4:18), and yet these people, knowing nothing about the Church and having no sacraments or any helps at all will get into Heaven.
And what about original sin?
"Ignorance is the mother of all errors," as Pope Benedict XIV said.
Go see how any savage lives.
the implicit BODer believes that it can be had in a person invincibly ignorant of the Church (yes, even for Buddhists, Muslims, etc.), but nonetheless, also there must be some explicit belief in some articles of the Faith (Jesus is God, etc.) and they must reject the errors when they are offered the Divine grace.
What you said is heretical and the quotes from Lefebvre or Fellay or Fahey don't say what you say. They make no mention of any "explicit belief in some articles of the Faith (Jesus is God, etc.) and they must reject the errors when they are offered the Divine grace". They blatantly teach salvation ourtside the Church and in all religions.
-
I will still hold fast and state the 1949 letter and Msgr. Fenton both uphold explicit faith and at the same time won't condemn implicit faith.
The Protocol is overtly heretical and plainly teaches salvation outside the Church.
So, you are "holding fast" to heresy and to the reducement of the necessity of belonging to the Church to a menaingless formula.
-
Implicit faith is a new development into the nature of BOD. Unlike you, I don't see how it contradicts the necessity of baptism.
Again be precise, we are dealing in a subject where the abbreviating out of one word can change everything. Are you saying that you don't see how the theory of Implicit Faith contradicts the necessity of water baptism?
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.
If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.
MO is that it is a waste of time to look for good will in QVP
-
Concerning the SSPX and BOD, I heard in +ABL's bios that he wasn't so concerned about baptising the mission natives when he was a Holy Ghost father.
I wonder if anyone can verify this ?
Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't concerned about baptizing catechumens right away, since he said that they don't go to Hell, if they desired the Sacrament and died before he was able to baptized them. He was more concerned about teaching the principles of the Faith, so that they would keep the Faith, even without baptism of water.
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't see how +ABL's view would jive with St. Francis Xavier or other missionary saints of antiquity?
As I understand it, St. Xavier personally Baptized over 3 million souls during his lifetime.
In Mexico, it was 9 million in just a few years. They had the desire and wanted a water Baptism.
It was reported that assistants had to hold-up the arms of the priests, so tired were they from Baptisms en masse.
(http://www.esteticas.unam.mx/revista_imagenes/inmediato/images/inm_constantino01_03.jpg)
Even St. Francis Xavier had to catechize them before they were baptized. There is no evidence that he baptized them right away!
Well, that St. Francis catechized, I don't doubt.
That he was more impatient for Baptized souls than +ABL, I don't doubt either.
Catechism for the Aztecs, probably, but it seems Our Lady of Guadalupe was impatient too and interceded to provide them with an understanding of the Faith.
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.
If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.
MO is that it is a waste of time to look for good will in QVP
...This coming from someone who accuses people of wanting Russia to be Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary of being "Marian idolaters".
Hypocrite.
-
"Baptizing catechumens conditionally?" Give me a source for this, pardon my expression, nonsense!! And show me in all Tradition where God is bound to give Sacramental baptism to each and every person. It's ridiculous in the face of things, since God is not bound to perform a miracle, such as you and others denying BOD demand of Him. It's apparent you deny this "votum" of the Council of Trent, such as Stubborn, too, in his attempt to twist the words to say desire (that is, an efficacious longing to enter the Church) is not sufficent.
As I said, any catechumen who desires baptism only has to ask someone, anyone at all to baptize him. There is no great theological mystery whatsoever involved.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside of the Church, you take the whole "desire thereof" aka "Votum" *completely* out of context.
If you study the canon or at least read the whole thing as it was written, you should come to agree that you have been mislead or mistaken - if you are of good will.
MO is that it is a waste of time to look for good will in QVP
...This coming from someone who accuses people of wanting Russia to be Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary of being "Marian idolaters".
Hypocrite.
I have no way of knowing who is of good will or not of good will. We should not get personal here. Lets stick to the subject, and leave out the persons.
For Example : I personally like Bishop Fellay, but I disagree with his theology, what he believes and says.
I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written, and we don't agree on Fatima and Pius XII. Same with QVP, we agree on many things , and yet we disagree on BOD. Nothing personal!
-
I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written
I just today read that roscoe wrote in an old thread that he thought BOB and BOD did exist but that they were rare. Sorry I don't have a link.
-
I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written
I just today read that roscoe wrote in an old thread that he thought BOB and BOD did exist but that they were rare. Sorry I don't have a link.
I guess we don't agree then.
-
What you said is heretical and the quotes from Lefebvre or Fellay or Fahey don't say what you say. They make no mention of any "explicit belief in some articles of the Faith (Jesus is God, etc.) and they must reject the errors when they are offered the Divine grace". They blatantly teach salvation ourtside the Church and in all religions.
So was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic?
-
So was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic?
Is someone who says that "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)" , that “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”a Catholic?
Notice the "etc." The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”.
This would include any and every religion.
This would include Satanism, for example.
-
Sounds a lot like the "anonymous christianty" of Rahner and a lot like JPII's statement how "all men secretly desire the New Covenant".
-
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?
-
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?
He was being ambiguous. He kind of wanted to have his "EENS cake and eat it, too!" Let's consider all of this in terms of Pascal's Wager:
1) An invincibly-ignorant non-Catholic who has genuine implicit faith and submission to the Roman Pontiff is in a state of grace, that is, no original sin and no mortal, either.
2) A non-Catholic is in a state of original and/or mortal sin.
With respect to non-Catholics, categories #1 and #2 are mutually exclusively. Do you agree? If so, how are we harming the non-Catholic in #1 by preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to that person? How about #2? And, if we cannot tell the difference between #1 and #2, then does it matter? We should preach the Gospel. Period. To every human creator, without exception. Agreed?
-
I don't know Roscoe, but we agree on EENS as it is written
I just today read that roscoe wrote in an old thread that he thought BOB and BOD did exist but that they were rare. Sorry I don't have a link.
I am not a theologian but if memory is serving me correctly, my comments were that the whole BOD/BOB debate is a waste of time( similar to the Pius XII is guilty of dereliction of duty re: Fatima mantra) because there probably isn't more than a few hundred people in the world today that it even applies to.
-
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?
If you can't answer that question yourself you're in big trouble.
-
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?
If you can't answer that question yourself you're in big trouble.
I see that you're conveniently refusing to give a direct answer.
If I'm able to "answer the question myself" you should be able to as well.
-
So in other words, you are saying Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic?
If you can't answer that question yourself you're in big trouble.
I see that you're conveniently refusing to give a direct answer.
If I'm able to "answer the question myself" you should be able to as well.
What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:
What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
-
What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:
What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
Besides the Baltimore or Pius X catechisms, where else is this implicit faith thing found?
-
What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:
What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
If saying that people can be saved outside the Church, practicing false religions, and that people can be saved in any religion (this would include Satanism), oh, but "by the Church", and that a Christ-rejecting Jew can have supernatural grace and be saved, is simply "erroneous", then what in the world would heretical be?
All the people who profess to believe in God or profess to be Catholics who deny the salvation dogma and say there is salvation outside the Church say they are all saved outside the Church and dying as non-Catholics by God of course, so how is this any different?
If that is not direct and formal heresy, and watering down the dogma, then i don't know what is.
-
What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:
What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
Besides the Baltimore or Pius X catechisms, where else is this implicit faith thing found?
You won't find it in the 1891 original Baltimore catechism, and I don't know when and if it was ever later put in in the 20th century. The Pius X quote is not in the original in Italian, which is the only official catechism, since it was a local catechism in Rome printed in Italian.
AND regarding Pius X directly (not a catechism just named after Pius X!):
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
-
What Abp. Lefebvre said was wrong, it is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, since the 20th century that liberal teaching has spread to even traditionalist priest. Until it is condemned by the pope himself, the opinion is allowed. We can't call Karl Rahner nor Abp. Lefebvre heretics for both teaching the same thing. When a sane pope is finally sent by God he will decide the issue. Till then:
What Abp. Lefebvre said is rejected by ALL of tradition: the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the saints, and the Athanasian Creed. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
If saying that people can be saved outside the Church, practicing false religions, and that people can be saved in any religion (this would include Satanism), oh, but "by the Church", and that a Christ-rejecting Jew can have supernatural grace and be saved, is simply "erroneous", then what in the world would heretical be?
All the people who profess to believe in God or profess to be Catholics who deny the salvation dogma and say there is salvation outside the Church say they are all saved outside the Church and dying as non-Catholics by God of course, so how is this any different?
If that is not direct and formal heresy, and watering down the dogma, then i don't know what is.
I agree, and we can say the same about the docuмents of Vatican II, and all of the heresies of the Vatican II popes, but as long as there is no pope to declare sanity, NOTHING is a heresy.
-
I agree, and we can say the same about the docuмents of Vatican II, and all of the heresies of the Vatican II popes, but as long as there is no pope to declare sanity, NOTHING is a heresy.
You're out of your mind pal.
What are you? Sedevacantist? SSPX?
-
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
I think that Saint Francis Xavier erred. Here is a completely orthodox path of salvation for those Japanese peoples who lived prior to the coming of Saint Francis Xavier:
1) As "anyone whatsoever" (Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 1) can administer a valid sacramental Baptism, and as for an infant, a valid baptism is always a fruitful one, it is possible that some of these "Japanese ancestors" were sacramentally baptized in their infancies, perhaps even by angels who, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, can validly administer a Sacrament.
2) As the One and Triune God can raise individuals back to life, so, too, He can grant "salutary repentance" at death's door, so it is possible that these Japanese ancestors, especially those in Category #1, received forgiveness just prior to their particular judgments.
Positions #1 and #2, by the way, are explicitly espoused by the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, if only as possibilities but not as certainties.
-
I have often wondered, knowing this is not de fide, yet I wonder.
God knows all things. He would know that if a person was born ignorant of the Faith, yet He knew IF that same person was born during a different time, under different circuмstances and environments, would have accepted all the Truths of His religion, would it be possible an angel could administer the sacraments at God's perfect timing for someone. Manifesting "the unerring keenness of His justice, and the might of His love." (quote from a prayer)
I believe with all my heart, NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, however I fear for these people who insist on limiting God's mercy.
-
Positions #1 and #2, by the way, are explicitly espoused by the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, if only as possibilities but not as certainties.
As if they were any bulwark of orthodoxy.
-
I have often wondered, knowing this is not de fide, yet I wonder.
What's not de fide? No salvation outside the Church?
God knows all things. He would know that if a person was born ignorant of the Faith, yet He knew IF that same person was born during a different time, under different circuмstances and environments, would have accepted all the Truths of His religion, would it be possible an angel could administer the sacraments at God's perfect timing for someone. Manifesting "the unerring keenness of His justice, and the might of His love." (quote from a prayer)
How blasphemous. You believe in an impotent God who supposedly knows all these people "would certainly be good Catholics if only they knew" but is utterly incapable of making these people COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM. He sees them in their plight but remains a helpless spectator.
I believe with all my heart, NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH,
No you don't.
however I fear for these people who insist on limiting God's mercy.
Fear for yourself, putting limits to God's power and denying His omnipotence.
And don't say saving people without being Catholics is a show of omnipotence or mercy, for that is heretical, AND, it makes no point in being Catholic at all if God can just "save you later".
God cannot lie.
-
I have often wondered, knowing this is not de fide, yet I wonder.
What's not de fide? No salvation outside the Church?
God knows all things. He would know that if a person was born ignorant of the Faith, yet He knew IF that same person was born during a different time, under different circuмstances and environments, would have accepted all the Truths of His religion, would it be possible an angel could administer the sacraments at God's perfect timing for someone. Manifesting "the unerring keenness of His justice, and the might of His love." (quote from a prayer)
How blasphemous. You believe in an impotent God who supposedly knows all these people "would certainly be good Catholics if only they knew" but is utterly incapable of making these people COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM. He sees them in their plight but remains a helpless spectator.
I believe with all my heart, NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH,
No you don't.
however I fear for these people who insist on limiting God's mercy.
Fear for yourself, putting limits to God's power and denying His omnipotence.
And don't say saving people without being Catholics is a show of omnipotence or mercy, for that is heretical, AND, it makes no point in being Catholic at all if God can just "save you later".
God cannot lie.
You seem to know more than God, and twist words and thoughts like the :devil2:
A mind reader too! WoW! At least I said, "I wonder" your note sounds de fide in nature.
-
I have often wondered, knowing this is not de fide, yet I wonder.
God knows all things. He would know that if a person was born ignorant of the Faith, yet He knew IF that same person was born during a different time, under different circuмstances and environments, would have accepted all the Truths of His religion, would it be possible an angel could administer the sacraments at God's perfect timing for someone. Manifesting "the unerring keenness of His justice, and the might of His love." (quote from a prayer)
I believe with all my heart, NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, however I fear for these people who insist on limiting God's mercy.
Go to the Predestination thread in this same CI Crisis in the Church section. Read it carefully and it should answer your question. God does foreknow ALL of the circuмstances that "under different circuмstances and environments, would have accepted AND NOT ACCEPTED all the Truths of His religion" . With that in His knowledge he decides what graces and locations of birth and surroundings He will assign to this person. There are no surprises or mistake for God, and there are no miracles that he needs (sending an angel to baptize someone) to accomplish what he predestined and foreknew.
-
I have often wondered, knowing this is not de fide, yet I wonder.
What's not de fide? No salvation outside the Church?
God knows all things. He would know that if a person was born ignorant of the Faith, yet He knew IF that same person was born during a different time, under different circuмstances and environments, would have accepted all the Truths of His religion, would it be possible an angel could administer the sacraments at God's perfect timing for someone. Manifesting "the unerring keenness of His justice, and the might of His love." (quote from a prayer)
How blasphemous. You believe in an impotent God who supposedly knows all these people "would certainly be good Catholics if only they knew" but is utterly incapable of making these people COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM. He sees them in their plight but remains a helpless spectator.
I believe with all my heart, NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH,
No you don't.
however I fear for these people who insist on limiting God's mercy.
Fear for yourself, putting limits to God's power and denying His omnipotence.
And don't say saving people without being Catholics is a show of omnipotence or mercy, for that is heretical, AND, it makes no point in being Catholic at all if God can just "save you later".
God cannot lie.
He got three thumbs down, maybe because of his tone, HOWEVER, everything he wrote is accurate. Go to the predestination thread in CI Crisis in the Church. Mortalium's comments are inline with the teachings of predestination.
-
I agree, and we can say the same about the docuмents of Vatican II, and all of the heresies of the Vatican II popes, but as long as there is no pope to declare sanity, NOTHING is a heresy.
You're out of your mind pal.
What are you? Sedevacantist? SSPX?
Calm your rockets son. I agreed with what you wrote. I'm just telling you that the way things are today, you are not going to find a pope or council for some time to declare all of those errors heresy, because they are ALL modernists (and heretics) themselves.
I'm not a sede-vacantes, and I go to an SSPX chapel. If you read what I write you'll know that I don't believe in BOD.
-
You know bowler, I have noticed a few poster that want to voice their point but why are they so crass? If people want others to consider what they say, they must learn to have a little tact.
Not saying I am not guilty, but I know how to apologize when I slip up, with the grace of God.
BTW bowler, I was not pointing at you, it is just you posted last. :cool:
-
You know bowler, I have noticed a few poster that want to voice their point but why are they so crass? If people want others to consider what they say, they must learn to have a little tact.
They have no experience. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes.
A person that really knows his material will not loose their top and start calling people heretics, blasphemers, and such. Look at Caminus how he lost it in the commentary postings.
One should present the authoritative quotes and let the quotes speak.
I remember once I told a group that in the 1940's there were like 50 annulments per year in the whole world, and that today it is like 50,000 just in the USA. Someone listening said, Oh, I have an annulment (I learned years later that she had two), do you think it is invalid? I looked at her and said, all I'm saying is that there were 50 in the whole world before, and now there are 50,000 in the USA.
I let her figure it out.
-
Positions #1 and #2, by the way, are explicitly espoused by the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, if only as possibilities but not as certainties.
As if they were any bulwark of orthodoxy.
Well, they are in full communion with their bishop and the Holy See, Vicar of God. In judging them, you are judging the Church; specifically, your statements are at least materially schismatic, in that you are claiming that a validly consecrated and lawfully recognized bishop of the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is administering the Sacraments to public heretics.