Author Topic: Feenyism (Read 12107 times)

nadieimportante · « **Reply #75 on:** December 21, 2011, 07:28:39 AM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Quote from: nadieimportante
What I implied was that the Holy Ghost protects the Church from teaching heresy as dogma.

The infallibility of the Church extends beyond dogma. Look it up in a theology book.

Hmm... like Vatican II?

The Vatican II Church has not infallible declared any heresy. I've debated this on the side of that it has, and was proven wrong after much debate. Unlike most other people (if the rest of the world did the same they'd all be real Catholics), I change my thinking when I am presented with coherent truth.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #76 on:** December 21, 2011, 07:36:50 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

This is a good summation...

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
You guys are at cross-purposes.

There is no salvation outside the Church.... That means absolutely none. Not any. Zero. Nada.

All of the approved theologians teach this, there are no exceptions (this doesn't include heterodox theologians, such as the ones who were silenced before Vatican II and then re-emerged to bring us Vatican II, because they were not "approved" but rather disapproved).

Implicit faith is a standard doctrine in all of the manuals. Any Catholic who doesn't know about some dogma or other (e.g. that Antichrist will be a individual person) still believes that dogma, but by implicit rather than explicit faith.

Anybody who dies and is saved, has died within the Church.

That does not mean that they had to be a member of the Church, because membership and being "within" are distinct concepts with distinct meanings. The Church has never defined that only "members of the Church" go to heaven.

In order to be a member of the Church, one must be baptised (i.e. with water). St. Emerentiana went to heaven, obviously, but she was not baptised. She had original and any actual sins remitted by desire for baptism and perfect charity. Obviously she had supernatural faith. She was within the Church, but not a member of the Church.

In order to be within the Church at death one must be in the state of grace. In order to be in the state of grace one must have had original and mortal actual sins forgiven. That means baptism or the desire for it. It also means Penance or an act of perfect contrition. It also implies supernatural faith. Supernatural faith may be implicit, but that means implicit in something. That something includes at least the truths that God is, and that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked. The better theologians also maintain that knowledge of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption are required.

The Church has condemned the idea that one may hold good hope for anybody who dies not in any way in the Church. This means that if somebody dies and there are no external signs that they died in the Church, we are not to hold good hope for them.

Nadie is wrong in equating membership in the Church with the dogma that one must die within the Church to be saved. But he is right in arguing against the notion that there are exceptions to the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. There are only the ordinary way of being in the Church, by membership, and the extraordinary way of being within the Church, by desire.

All who die as Jews, Protestants, pagans, etc., go to hell for all eternity. If somebody who has lived as a Protestant converts on his deathbed and fulfils the conditions of salvation, even if nobody in this world knows about it, he will be saved, because he was brought by grace into the Church before death. So he is saved because he is in the Church, because he converted before death. But we are not permitted to speculate that anybody like that converted and was saved, since there is no evidence that he did. On the contrary, we presume that they died as they lived, and were lost.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious, it's the 1% that will kill you.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #77 on:** December 21, 2011, 08:02:34 AM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Roman Catholic

This is a good summation...

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
You guys are at cross-purposes.

There is no salvation outside the Church.... That means absolutely none. Not any. Zero. Nada.

All of the approved theologians teach this, there are no exceptions (this doesn't include heterodox theologians, such as the ones who were silenced before Vatican II and then re-emerged to bring us Vatican II, because they were not "approved" but rather disapproved).

Implicit faith is a standard doctrine in all of the manuals. Any Catholic who doesn't know about some dogma or other (e.g. that Antichrist will be a individual person) still believes that dogma, but by implicit rather than explicit faith.

Anybody who dies and is saved, has died within the Church.

That does not mean that they had to be a member of the Church, because membership and being "within" are distinct concepts with distinct meanings. The Church has never defined that only "members of the Church" go to heaven.

In order to be a member of the Church, one must be baptised (i.e. with water). St. Emerentiana went to heaven, obviously, but she was not baptised. She had original and any actual sins remitted by desire for baptism and perfect charity. Obviously she had supernatural faith. She was within the Church, but not a member of the Church.

In order to be within the Church at death one must be in the state of grace. In order to be in the state of grace one must have had original and mortal actual sins forgiven. That means baptism or the desire for it. It also means Penance or an act of perfect contrition. It also implies supernatural faith. Supernatural faith may be implicit, but that means implicit in something. That something includes at least the truths that God is, and that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked. The better theologians also maintain that knowledge of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption are required.

The Church has condemned the idea that one may hold good hope for anybody who dies not in any way in the Church. This means that if somebody dies and there are no external signs that they died in the Church, we are not to hold good hope for them.

Nadie is wrong in equating membership in the Church with the dogma that one must die within the Church to be saved. But he is right in arguing against the notion that there are exceptions to the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. There are only the ordinary way of being in the Church, by membership, and the extraordinary way of being within the Church, by desire.

All who die as Jews, Protestants, pagans, etc., go to hell for all eternity. If somebody who has lived as a Protestant converts on his deathbed and fulfils the conditions of salvation, even if nobody in this world knows about it, he will be saved, because he was brought by grace into the Church before death. So he is saved because he is in the Church, because he converted before death. But we are not permitted to speculate that anybody like that converted and was saved, since there is no evidence that he did. On the contrary, we presume that they died as they lived, and were lost.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious, it's the 1% that will kill you.

According to your reckoning, specifically what is the "1%" in that summation?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #78 on:** December 21, 2011, 08:49:11 AM »

Quote

RM wrote: According to your reckoning, specifically what is the "1%" in that summation?

It's much more than 1%, but 1% is good enough to kill you.

Quote

Implicit faith is a standard doctrine in all of the manuals.

Implicit faith was invented in the 1600's and was pretty much lost in the books till the late 1800's, when it was resuscitated by the liberals. It is not doctrine. It is not universal. It was rejected by every theologian prior to the 1600's. It was directly opposed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri and the Thomists after it was thrust into the world. It is not doctrine. It was not the "standard" in the World late in 1800's, which is the date of Gertrude’s manuals. It's not Catholic, universal, it's only the theologians of the 20th century that made it the "standard'. It is the foundational cause of the ecuмenism movement and Assisi.

Quote

There is no salvation outside the Church.... That means absolutely none. Not any. Zero. Nada

.

True, but then like all liberals, he will explain it away.

Quote

Anybody who dies and is saved, has died within the Church.
That does not mean that they had to be a member of the Church, because membership and being "within" are distinct concepts with distinct meanings. The Church has never defined that only "members of the Church" go to heaven.

Pure sophism. Nada does not mean nada then. There's the liberal explains it away, that I expected. It never fails.

Quote

In order to be a member of the Church, one must be baptized (i.e. with water). St. Emerentiana went to heaven, obviously, but she was not baptized. She had original and any actual sins remitted by desire for baptism and perfect charity. Obviously she had supernatural faith. She was within the Church, but not a member of the Church.

Bad example. This is an example of Baptism of blood, not baptism of desire. She was a person that wanted to be a Catholic, and more than that, she was willing to be tortured for her beliefs. The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else.

Besides all that, St. St. Emerentiana is a bad example of being saved without baptism, because there is no proof that she was not baptized. Martyrologies are full of errors. What's so difficult about pouring water on the head and saying 8 words? God can easily keep her alive for 100 years, what possesses people to think that God would forget that part? Without God's grace, St. Emerentianawould have burned incense to ALL the false Gods. there has not been an example of BOB in the last like 1800 years. However, the examples of people being sent back from the dead just to be baptized, are many, many and current. also the example of missionaries who tell us that the sick, and aged would die like flies, minutes after being baptized.

This is a good example of BOB (baptism of blood)being used to justify implicit faith [=BOND (baptism of no desire whatsoever to be a Catholic)]

That's enough poison no? I will not write any further about the rest , as only 1% kills.

Nishant · « **Reply #79 on:** December 21, 2011, 09:50:41 AM »

NadieImportante,

Quote

Strawmen all over the place. Post sources for your belief.

Well, I did reference this, but here is the relevant portion itself, from the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

Quote

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So, just curious, in your opinion, is this heresy?

As for what you have said that I disagree with, even your latest post furnishes an example. You said, "The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else" but whomever this is aimed at, it is not what the Holy Office said, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the position you argue against.

Quote

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

To will to do all that God requires is necessary for salvation, and the desire for baptism is implicit in such a desire, because God requires baptism. This is the real import of implicit faith.

The letter continues,

Quote

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church"

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).

So whether or not you agree with him, the point to note is that what you are arguing against is not what Pope Pius XII said. He spoke of an implicit desire contained in the firm resolve to do all that God requires which is illumined by supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity.

Finally, we must conform our own minds to that of Christ Jesus, which is that of His Church, and also this does not dispense the obligations of the Church to preach to all without exception.

Quote

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #80 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:37:38 PM »

Quote

Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So, just curious, in your opinion, is this heresy?

Here's a copy and paste from MHFM that explains it all, without my having to write anything. Excuse the heresy charges wherever they appear, because of all the confusion among the clergy and the faithful, I always refrain from calling any Catholic a heretic today. It's an old copy and paste, which i boldened in certain places for some reason, which may not apply now. anyways it's quick.

Quote from: nadieimportante

POPE PIUS IX AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

It is imperative to keep in mind that, even if Pope Pius IX had taught that the invincibly ignorant could be saved on these two occasions, it would not’t mean that such a position is true, because they were fallible docuмents which could have contained error. No pope can change or contradict dogma. Thus, no one, not even a pope, can change the dogma that no one who dies outside the Catholic Church, ignorant or not, can be saved.

Though it’s clear that these docuмents of Pope Pius IX did not teach that “invincible ignorance” could save someone, as Fr. Muller confirms below, this is not the main issue in regard to this extremely important topic of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. The main issue concerns what the Church has infallibly taught, not what Pope Pius IX fallibly taught. Both of these docuмents were fallible, not dogmatic, and could have contained error! The heretics who believe in salvation outside the Church love to dump all of the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this issue and focus ad nauseam on what they think Pope Pius IX fallibly taught. They ignore all of the dogmatic definitions (quoted already in this docuмent), while intent on trying to exploit two fallible docuмents from Pope Pius IX. They pit their own misinterpretation of a few lines in a speech of Pius IX to the cardinals and in a letter to the clergy of Italy against the dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence! This is absolutely absurd and totally dishonest. Fr. Leonard Feeney expressed it well:

“Just imagine, my dear listeners, the whole secret of salvation being missed in the Gospels, in the teachings of the Apostles, in the protestations of the Saints, in the defined teachings of the Popes, in all the prayers and the liturgies of the Church – and imagine it suddenly coming clear in one or two carelessly worded sentences in an encyclical of Pope Pius IX, on which the Liberals base their teaching that there is salvation outside the Church.” [Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life, Cambridge, MA: St. Benedict Center, 1952, p. 53.
]

The truth is that the liberals recognize what is being said here; they realize that even if Pope Pius IX did teach what they claim (which he didn’t), his statements were not infallible and would carry no weight when compared with the dogmatic definitions on the topic. But they don’t care about that, because, as one priest who believes in salvation outside the Church said: “I like what Pius IX said.” Yes, he likes what he thinks Pius IX said, and he doesn’t like what God has said via the Church’s infallible statements.

That pretty much sums it up: those who obstinately insist on salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” while ignoring these facts, and obstinately quote Pius IX to attempt to prove it, simply reject dogma, in favor of their own contrived interpretations of fallible statements, interpretations which lead them to conclusions which were explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX himself. Thus, these people “choose” their heretical ideas over Catholic dogma – heresy, in the Greek, means “choice” – and in so doing they demonstrate bad will and actually mock God. Such persons are devoid of the true Faith; they don’t possess the gift of acceptance of the supernatural revelation of God; they assert that Jesus Christ is not important enough that everyone above reason must know Him to be saved; and they want the truth their own way.

St. John Chrysostom (+390): “So the Machabees are honored in that they preferred to die rather than betray the Law… Then [in the Old Law] it sufficed to salvation to know God alone. Now it is no longer so; the knowledge of Christ is necessary to salvation…” [The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 42.]

That pretty much sums it up, if you want to read details, here theyare:
________________________________________________________

SINGULARI QUADEM, AN ALLOCUTION (A SPEECH TO THE CARDINALS)

The first of the docuмents from Pope Pius IX, frequently quoted by those who believe in salvation outside the Church, is Singulari Quadem, an allocution (a speech to the cardinals) given December 9, 1854:

“....those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.”

First of all, this is a speech of Pope Pius IX to the cardinals. It is not a dogmatic pronouncement, not even an encyclical, nor even an encyclical addressed to the entire Church.

But is Pope Pius IX saying that the invincibly ignorant can be justified and saved in their condition? No. Rather, he is stating that the “invincibly ignorant” will not be held accountable for the sin of infidelity. Read carefully the last part of the sentence, “are not subject to any guilt IN THIS MATTER,” that is, in the matter of infidelity. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for their other sins, which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity (or disbelief in the Gospel). [Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10., A. 1.] These other sins of the unbelievers serve as the reason why God does not reveal the Gospel to them and which ultimately excludes them from salvation. If one among them, however, were truly sincere and of good will, and cooperating with the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him. Pope Pius IX goes on to say in the same allocution concerning a person of good will who is invincibly ignorant:

“the gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light…

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…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 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.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 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.”

Thus, Pope Pius IX was not teaching that people who are ignorant of the Catholic Faith can be saved; he was, rather, stating that such unbelievers are not damned for the matter of infidelity. The fact that all who die as ignorant non-Catholics are not saved is the affirmation of all of Catholic Tradition and all the saints, besides being the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”

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.”

St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”

What’s interesting, however, and further confirms the point above, is that in Singulari Quadem, after explaining how the invincibly ignorant are not held guilty in this matter, Pope Pius IX declares that a Catholic must hold one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism, and that it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry! – probably in an attempt to stem the tide of belief that one could be saved outside the Church by “baptism of desire.” The people who believe in salvation outside the Church almost never quote this part of the allocution.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

Therefore, even Pope Pius IX, in the very statement wrongly quoted by the liberals against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, admonishes that such theorizing about salvation by other baptisms and other faiths is unlawful.

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

Pope Pius IX proceeded to speak about the invincibly ignorant again seven years later in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. Quanto Conficiamur Moerore does not meet the requirements for infallibility; it is addressed only to the cardinals and bishops of Italy.

Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion AND WHO ZEALOUSLY KEEPING THE NATURAL LAW AND ITS PRECEPTS ENGRAVED IN THE HEARTS OF ALL BY GOD, AND BEING READY TO OBEY GOD, LIVE AN HONEST AND UPRIGHT LIFE, can, by the OPERATING POWER OF DIVINE LIGHT AND GRACE, attain eternal life since God...will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.”

First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man “living in error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”? Why, of course, it is the idea that a man living in error and separated from the true Faith can be saved. So, the very concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned as QUITE CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC TEACHING in this very docuмent of Pope Pius IX.

Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel] attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from darkness.

Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.”

1 Thess. 5:4-5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness… For all you are the children of the light.”

Colossians 1:12-13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”

1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”

2 Corinthians 4:3-4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

2 Timothy 1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the Gospel.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I (+1870): “… no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the Gospel,’ as he must to attain salvation, without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing the truth.” [Denzinger 1791]

So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the good-willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized. Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good-willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.

If Pope Pius IX had repeated in a strong way the previous definitions of the popes, without any ambiguous language, he would have avoided the danger of modernists misinterpreting his words. This is a shame because almost all of his statements on this topic do very clearly affirm Church dogma without any ambiguity that heretics can jump on.

Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”

Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”

Pope Pius IX- Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” ] – Condemned

Notice again that the concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned here. The concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant,” as it is held by almost everyone who holds it today, is that some men – including those who observe non-Catholic religions – can find and arrive at salvation in these religions because they are “without fault of their own.” But this is heretical and condemned by Pius IX’s own Syllabus of Errors above.

Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R. was a Catholic priest who lived during the time of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a famous book entitled The Catholic Dogma in which he defended the Church’s teaching that a person who is “invincibly ignorant” of the Faith cannot be saved. He also defended the true meaning of Pope Pius IX’s teaching on this topic.

Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888: “Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).
“It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.’ Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means.”

nadieimportante · « **Reply #81 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:45:33 PM »

If you don't like the Dimonds here's Bishop Hay:

Here's Bishop George Hay of Scotland [1729-1811],
Excerpts From THE SINCERE CHRISTIAN

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation.htm

From Part 3

Q. 5. But if a man act according to the dictates of his conscience, and follow exactly the light of reason which God has implanted in him for his guide, is that not sufficient to bring him to salvation?

A. This is, indeed, a specious proposition; but a fallacy lurks under it. When man was created, his reason was then an enlightened
reason. Illuminated by the grace of original righteousness, with which his soul was adorned, reason and conscience were safe guides to conduct him in the way of salvation. But by sin this light was miserably darkened, and his reason clouded by ignorance and error. It was not, indeed, entirely extinguished; it still clearly teaches him many great truths, but it is at present so influenced by pride, passion, prejudice, and other such corrupt motives, that in many instances it serves only to confirm him in error, by giving an appearance of reason to the suggestions of self-love and passion. This is too commonly the case even in natural things; but in the supernatural, in things relating to God and eternity, our reason, if left to itself, is miserably blind. To remedy this, God has given us the light of Faith as a sure and safe guide to conduct us to salvation, appointing His Holy Church the guardian and depository of this heavenly light; consequently, though a man may pretend to act according to reason and conscience, and even flatter himself that he does so, yet reason and conscience, if not enlightened and guided by True Faith, can never bring him to salvation.

Q. 6. Does Holy Scripture give any light in this matter?

A. Nothing can be more striking than the words of Holy Scripture. "There is a way," says the wise man, "that seemeth right to a man, but the ends thereof lead to death," [Prov. 14: 12]. This is repeated, [Prov. 16: 25]. What can be more plain than this, to show that a man may act according to what he thinks the light of reason and conscience, persuaded he is doing right, and yet, in fact, be only running on in the way to perdition? And do not all those who are seduced by false prophets, and false teachers, think they are in the right way? Is it not under the pretext of acting according to conscience that they are seduced? And yet the Mouth of Truth itself has declared, that "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit," [Matt. 15: 14].

In order to show us to what excess of wickedness man may go under the pretense of following his conscience, the same Eternal Truth says to His Apostles, "The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth God a service," [John 16: 2]; but observe what He adds, -----"And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor Me," [ver. 3]. Which shows that if one has not the true knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, which can be obtained only through True Faith, there is no enormity of which he is not capable while thinking he is acting according to reason and conscience. Had we only the light of reason to direct us, we would be justified in following it; but as God has given us an external guide in His Holy Church, to assist and correct our blinded reason by the light of Faith, our reason alone, unassisted by this guide, can never be sufficient for salvation.

Nothing will set this in a clearer light than a few examples.

Conscience tells a heathen that it is not only lawful, but a duty to worship and offer sacrifice to idols, the work of men's hands. Will his doing so, according to his conscience, save him? Or will these acts of idolatry be innocent or agreeable in the sight of God, because they are performed, according to conscience? The answer which the Word of God gives to this question; to which add that of the wise man,-----The idol that is made by hands is cursed, as well as he that made it, for that which is made, together with him that made it, shall suffer torments," [Wis. 14: 8, 10]; also, "He that sacrificeth to gods shall be put to death, save only to the Lord," [Exod. 22: 20].

In like manner, a Jew's conscience tells him that he may lawfully and meritoriously blaspheme Jesus Christ, and approve the conduct of his forefathers in putting Him to death upon a tree. Will such blasphemy save him, because it is according to the dictates of his conscience? The Holy Ghost by the mouth of St. Paul says, "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema," that is, "accursed,"
[1 Cor. 16: 22].

A Mahometan is taught by his conscience that it would be a crime to believe in Jesus Christ, and not believe in Mahomet; will this impious conscience save him? The Scripture assures us that "there is no other name given to men under Heaven by which we can be saved," but the name of Jesus only; and "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth on him."

All the various sects which have been separated from the True Church, in every age, have uniformly calumniated and slandered her, speaking evil of the truth professed by her, believing in their conscience that this was not only lawful, but highly meritorious. Will calumnies and slanders against the Church of Jesus Christ save them because of their approving conscience? The Word of God declares, "That the nation and the kingdom that will not serve her shall perish" and "there shall be lying teachers who shall bring in damnable heresies, bringing upon themselves swift destruction, through how the way of truth shall be evil spoken of," [2 Pet. 2: 1].

In all these, and similar cases, their conscience is their greatest crime, and shows to what a height of impiety conscience and reason can lead us, when under the influence of pride, passion, prejudice, and
self-love. Conscience and reason, therefore, can never be safe guides to salvation, unless directed by the sacred light of revealed truth.

PART 4

Q. 7. But suppose a person to be invincibly ignorant of the Faith of Jesus Christ and His Church, will not this invincible ignorance save
him?

A. This is also a very specious proposition, and I am afraid that from not being properly considered it is an occasion of a dangerous mistake to many; we shall therefore endeavor to examine it thoroughly. And here we must observe, that two different questions are commonly mixed together when people speak of invincible ignorance: the first is, Will a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith or Church of Christ be condemned precisely on account of that ignorance? That is, will that ignorance be imputed to him as a crime? Or will this his invincible ignorance excuse him from the guilt of not believing? To this I reply, that as no man can be guilty of a sin in not doing what is absolutely out of his power, therefore a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith and Church of Christ will not be condemned on account of that ignorance; such ignorance will not be imputed to him as a crime, but will undoubtedly excuse him from the guilt of disbelief: in this all divines agree without doubt or hesitation. A heathen, for example, who never heard of Jesus Christ, will not be condemned as criminal precisely for want of Faith in Him; a heretic who has never had any knowledge of the True Church of Christ will not be condemned as guilty because he is not joined in communion with that Church. So far, the first question admits of no dispute. The second question is this, Can a person invincibly ignorant of the True Faith or Church of Jesus, and living and dying, in that state, be saved? This is a highly important but a very different question from the former, though too frequently confounded with it. Now, to answer this question clearly and distinctly we must consider two different cases: first, that of Mahometans, Jews, and heathens, who, never having heard of Jesus Christ or of His religion, are invincibly ignorant of it; and, secondly, that of all the different sects of Christians who are separated from the True Church of Christ by heresy.

Q. 8. What then is to be said of all those Mahometans, Jews, and heathens, who, never having heard of Jesus Christ or of His religion, are therefore invincibly ignorant of both? Can they be saved, if they live and die in that state?

A. The plain answer to this is that they cannot be saved; that not one of these "can enter into the kingdom of God." It is true, as we have seen above, they will not be condemned precisely because they have not the faith of Christ, of which they are invincibly ignorant. But the faith of Christ, though an essential condition of salvation, is but one condition;
others also are required.

And though invincible ignorance will certainly save a man from sin, in not knowing that of which he is invincibly ignorant, yet it is impossible to suppose that this invincible ignorance on one point will supply the want of all other conditions required. Now, all those we here speak of are in the state of Original Sin, "aliens from God, and children of wrath," being unBaptized; and it is an article of Christian Faith, that, unless Original Sin be washed away by the grace of Baptism, there is no salvation; for Christ Himself expressly declares, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," [John 3: 5]. And, indeed, if even the children of Christian parents, who die without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven, how much less can those who, besides being unBaptized, live and die in ignorance of the true God, of Jesus Christ and His Faith, and, on that account, may be supposed to have also committed many actual sins. Nay, to imagine that heathens, Mahometans, or Jews who live and die in that state can be saved, is to suppose that ignorance will save worshipers of idols, of Mahomet, and blasphemers of Jesus Christ, in the guilt of actual as well as Original Sin; which is putting them upon a better footing than Christians themselves and their children. The fate of all such the Scripture decides as follows: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the Angel of His power, in a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His power," [2 Thess. 1: 7]. This is precise, indeed-----a clear and decisive answer to the present question.

Q. 9. What judgment does the Scripture pass on all those Christians who are separated from the Church by heresy? Can they be saved if they be in invincible ignorance, and live and die in their state of separation from the True Church of Christ?

A. These are in a very different state from Mahometans, Jews, and heathens, provided they have true Baptism among them; for if they either have no Baptism, or have altered the form of giving it ordained by Christ, then they are in no better state as to the possibility of their salvation than heathens, though they may assume the name of Christians. But if they have valid Baptism, then they are, by it, made true members of the Church of Christ, and those who die young, in their Baptismal innocence, shall undoubtedly be saved. But as to those among them who come to the years of discretion, are educated in a false faith, and live and die in a state of separation from the communion of the Church of Christ, we also must distinguish between two different cases. The first is that of those who either live among Catholics or have Catholics living in the same country with them; who know there are such persons, and often hear of them. The second regards those who have no such knowledge, and who seldom or never hear Catholics spoken of except in a false and odious light.

Q. 10. What is to be said of those who live among Catholics? If they be in invincible ignorance, and die in their state of separation, can they be saved?

A. It is next to impossible for anyone of this class to be in a state of invincible ignorance; for, to be invincibly ignorant, three things are necessarily required,-----first, that a person have a real and sincere desire of knowing the truth; for if he be cold and indifferent about an affair of such importance as his eternal salvation; if he be careless whether he be in the right way or not; if, enslaved to this present life, he take no concern about the next, it is manifest that an ignorance arising from this disposition is voluntary ignorance, and therefore highly culpable in the sight of God. It will be still more so if a person be positively unwilling to seek the truth from the fear of worldly inconvenience, and therefore avoid every opportunity of knowing it. Of these the Scripture says, "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment they go down to Hell; who have said to God, Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways," [Job 21: 13]. Secondly, In order that one be invincibly ignorant, it is required, that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it, and whatever it may cost him. For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear in all things necessary to salvation if, on the contrary, he, be so disposed that he rather would neglect his duty and hazard his soul than offend his friends or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage, his ignorance is culpable, and can never excuse him before his Creator. Of this Our Savior says, "He that loveth father or mother, or son or daughter, more than Me, is not worthy of Me," [Matt. 10: 37]. The third thing necessary for a person to be in invincible ignorance is, that he sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly, that he recommend the matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction from Him. For, whatever desire he may have of knowing the truth, if he does not use the proper means of finding it, his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary. Ignorance is invincible only when a person has a sincere desire to know the truth, with a full resolution to embrace it, but. either has no possible means of knowing it, or after using his best endeavors, is unable to discover it. Therefore, if a person be deficient in seeking to know his duty, his ignorance is not invincible-----it is his own fault that he does not know it; and if inattention, indifference, worldly motives, or unjust prejudices influence his judgment, and cause it to yield to the bias of education, he has neither invincible ignorance nor the fear of God.

Now, it is inconsistent with the goodness, and promises of God, that a person brought up in a false religion, but who is in the state supposed by these three conditions, and uses his best endeavors to know the truth, should be left in invincible ignorance of it; but if, from his attachment to the world, to sensual or selfish objects, he be not so disposed, and neglect the proper means for arriving at the truth, then his ignorance is voluntary and culpable, not invincible.

Q. 11. But what if doubt never rises in his mind, and he goes on bona fide, in the way in which he was brought up?

A. It is a mistake to suppose that a formal doubt is necessary to render one's ignorance of his duty voluntary and culpable; it is enough that there be sufficient reason for doubting, though from his unjust prejudices, obstinacy, pride, or other evil dispositions of the heart, he hinder these reasons from exciting a formal doubt in his mind. Saul had no doubt when he offered sacrifice before the prophet Samuel came; on the contrary, he was persuaded that he had the strongest reasons for doing so, yet he was condemned for that very action, and himself and his family rejected by Almighty God. The Jews believed that they were acting well when they put our Savior to death; nay, their high priest declared in full council that it was expedient for the good and safety of the nation that they should do so. They were grossly mistaken, indeed, and sadly ignorant of their duty; but their ignorance was culpable, and they were severely condemned for what they did, though it was done in ignorance. And indeed all who act from a false and erroneous conscience are highly blamable for having such a conscience, though they have never entertained any formal doubt. Nay, their not having such a doubt when they have just and solid grounds for doubting, rather renders them the more guilty, because it shows greater corruption of the heart, greater depravity of disposition. A person brought, up in a false faith which the Scripture calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies, and hypocrisy-----and who has heard of the True Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees their divisions and dissensions has always before his eyes the strongest reason to doubt the safety of his own state.

If he make any examination with sincere dispositions of heart, he must be convinced that he is in the wrong; and the more he examines, the more clearly will he see it,-----for this plain reason, that it is simply impossible that false doctrine, lies, and hypocrisy should ever be supported by solid arguments sufficient to satisfy a reasonable person, who sincerely seeks the truth, and begs light from God to direct him in the search. Hence, if such a person never doubts, but goes on, as is supposed, bona fide, in his own way, notwithstanding the strong grounds of doubt which he daily has before his eyes, this evidently shows either that he is supinely negligent in the concerns of his soul, or that his heart is totally blinded by passion and prejudice.

There were many such persons among the Jews and heathens in the time of the Apostles, who notwithstanding the splendid light of truth which these holy preachers everywhere displayed, and which was the most powerful reason for leading them to doubt of their superstitions, were so far from having such doubts, that they thought by killing the Apostles they did God a service. Whence did this arise? St. Paul himself informs us: "We renounce," says he, "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the Word of God, but, by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Here he describes the strange light of the truth which he preached; yet this light was hidden to great numbers, and he immediately gives the reason: "And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God, should not shine upon them," [2 Cor. 4: 2]. Behold the real cause of their incredulity: they are so enslaved to the things of this world by the depravity of their heart, and the devil so blinds them that they cannot see the light; but ignorance arising from such depraved dispositions is a guilty, a voluntary ignorance and therefore never can excuse them.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #82 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:53:46 PM »

Its funny that the only quote that invincible ignorance supporters quote is a falliable letter written by Pius IX that doesn't even say what they want it to say.

For those of you who believe in invincible ignorance: Can you provide us with just one statement from a saint or doctor supporting this idea of invincible ignorance?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #83 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:55:47 PM »

re: implicit desire and implicit faith, they ARE two different theories. St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught implicit desire and opposed implicit faith.

The liberals sometimes use the term implicit desire for both the theories, which makes things even more confusing. this is why we have to separate them.

Again an old posting of mine from AQ:

Quote from: nadieimportante

Here it is again in as short as I can put it:
1) The theory of baptism of desire as taught by the few Church Fathers that taught it, only covers the catechumen, AND NO ONE ELSE!

According to this theory, If anyone knows of any catecchumen who ever died without being baptized, he may have been saved. How many catechumens have ever died without receiving bapptism in the last year? Maybe one or two versus millions of people who died in the world! AN UNIMPORTANT SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION SINCE IT SAVES PRACTICALLY NO ONE.

2) The theory of implicit desire for baptism comes from St. Thomas. His teaching says that God would send a person or an angel to teach the faith
to the person no matter where the person is (in a deserted island). He says that at a minimum, the person must know of the Incarnation and the Trinity. The "implicit" comes into play because the person does not know that he is required to be baptized (strange that the angel or teacher didn't teach him that?). You will note that this is basically another catechumen who wants to be a Catholic. Therefore the same as I said above applies to this "implicit desire for baptism", that is, AN UNIMPORTANT SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION SINCE IT SAVES PRACTICALLY NO ONE.

Therefore, the real baptism of desire saves no Protestant, Jew, or anyone that does not want to be a Catholic. This is why St. Alphonsus Ligouri preached to the laity:

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGOURI REJECTED IMPLICIT FAITH
his sermons totally refute this modern day idea that an adult in ANY religion outside of the Church, can be saved by an unknown to the person (implicit) faith:

1. 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)

It’s interesting to consider that when the people who quote St. Alphonsus in favor of baptism of desire – and treat him as if he were infallible – are asked if they agree with his teaching here (that all who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell), they avoid the question like the plague. They avoid the question because, in this case, they do not share St. Alphonsus’ position. Rather, they believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans.

St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)

3. 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.)

4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)

One can see that, he condemned the modern day teaching of implicit faith, which asserts that one can attain salvation in another religion or without faith in Christ and the Catholic Mysteries of Faith.

Bottom line:
baptism of desire and implicit baptism of desire do not save Jews, Moslems, heretics, or anyone that does not desire to be a Catholic.

That's as simple as it gets.

s2srea · « **Reply #84 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:00:18 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote
Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So, just curious, in your opinion, is this heresy?

Here's a copy and paste from MHFM that explains it all, without my having to write anything. Excuse the heresy charges wherever they appear, because of all the confusion among the clergy and the faithful, I always refrain from calling any Catholic a heretic today. It's an old copy and paste, which i boldened in certain places for some reason, which may not apply now. anyways it's quick.

Is there some reason you are perpetually unable to answer people questions? Seriously. She asked you a question, "Is this heresy?". Why don't you answer in your own words, BEFORE copy and pasting another quote?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #85 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:24:06 PM »

Here's an old quote from AQ that's very interesting:

Quote from: Sed Contra

Let us review a number of the heterodox statements of implict faith that have been assembled in this thread, all of which date from the 19th century or later:[/size]

Quote
Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that "we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it." (ZENIT, September 5, 2000 - The World Seen From Rome)

Quote from: Pius XII
In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism... (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December 20, 1951, p. 854)

Quote from: The authors of the Catechism of Vatican II
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny[!] ... Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.

Quote from: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...

Quote from: Pio Nono
We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.

What do these statements have in common? Note carefully the words that I have bolded. These statements have in common the idea that a person can perform a virtuous act (enabled in a certain way by God) that substitutes for an explicit act of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, a person can in effect "save himself" (in a certain way with God's help) without making the least act of recognition that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Again, this has nothing to do with BOD or BOB, both of which, properly understood, assume as a precondition ...

... explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
Now, I will ask again: can someone please produce a solemn declaration of the Universal Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church in support of the heterodox idea of implicit faith?

s2srea · « **Reply #86 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:54:24 PM »

Bump

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote
Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So, just curious, in your opinion, is this heresy?

Here's a copy and paste from MHFM that explains it all, without my having to write anything. Excuse the heresy charges wherever they appear, because of all the confusion among the clergy and the faithful, I always refrain from calling any Catholic a heretic today. It's an old copy and paste, which i boldened in certain places for some reason, which may not apply now. anyways it's quick.

Is there some reason you are perpetually unable to answer peoples questions? Seriously. She asked you a question, "Is this heresy?". Why don't you answer in your own words, BEFORE copy and pasting another quote?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #87 on:** December 21, 2011, 04:35:55 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Implicit faith was invented in the 1600's ... It's not Catholic, universal, it's only the theologians of the 20th century that made it the "standard'.

Transubstantiation was "invented" in the Middle Ages. Theology develops. The Holy Ghost, permanently united to the Church (He is the Soul of the Church) guides her and ensures that she never errs.

As a matter of fact, implicit faith as a concept (if not in that exact term) is in St. Augustine's City of God, and if memory serves, his On Baptism, Against the Donatists as well. It's also clear in the Summa, so I don't know why you aren't aware of that, to the point that you deny it.

Quote from: nadieimportante

The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else.

Find me an approved theologian who says that. No wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #88 on:** December 22, 2011, 07:08:25 AM »

nadieimportante said:
Implicit faith was invented in the 1600's ... It's not Catholic, universal, it's only the theologians of the 20th century that made it the "standard'.

Gertrude responds: Transubstantiation was "invented" in the Middle Ages. Theology develops. The Holy Ghost, permanently united to the Church (He is the Soul of the Church) guides her and ensures that she never errs.

nadieimportante said: Transubstantiation was invented? what a lousy example. You might as well also tell me that the term Immaculate Conception was also invented. Both terms are just naming what was always believed.

Theology develops in the same sense and the same judgement (read St. Vincent of Lerins that I posted, and Vatican I), like a mustard seed develops into a Mustard Tree. It does not change into something else. Your implicit faith being "the development" of EENS, which requires incorporation into the Body, is analogous to the mustard seed growing up to be a mango tree.

nadieimportante said:
The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else.

Gertrude responds:Find me an approved theologian who says that. No wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Nadie responds: You are in denial. You've been hoodwinked by your liberal theologians sophisms on "implicit".

s2srea · « **Reply #89 on:** December 22, 2011, 08:23:04 AM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Gertrude responds:Find me an approved theologian who says that. No wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Nadie responds: You are in denial. You've been hoodwinked by your liberal theologians sophisms on "implicit".

As usual, unable to respond to the smallest request. Go ahead and start quoting pages and pages of quotes, you don't even know how to defend them, and you continually fail at providing the simplest requests.