Author Topic: Fr. Stepanich on Outside of the Church There is No Salvation (Read 6873 times)

CMMM · « **Reply #15 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:09:52 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: Elizabeth
The Feast of the Holy Innocents.

How do you explain that?

What is there to explain? The Holy Innocents were martyred before Christ established the law of baptism, and before it went into effect, the Great Commission.

Oh, interesting. I was not aware of this. Could you provide you source for this, I'd like to study it at length.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: Elizabeth
...damn evey innocent little baby to Hell... They deny God's love for souls.

There are no innocent little babies who are unbaptized Elizabeth. Or do you not believe in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church?

Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree on Original Sin, #4: "4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema."

Guess what Elizabeth? You deny the dogma of the inherited personal guilt of original sin. Please repent and convert.

Let us not get hasty. Most definitely, children would not be innocent of original sin, but they would be innocent of all other sin. Both Elizabeth and CM are somewhat correct. Now, as to the eternal resting place of their souls, such should be left to the discretion of our Lord. I would not be surprised if God, knowing the destiny of that child should he live, would condemn some, and save others. But, entirely speculation.

We should baptize as soon as possible, and where impossible, trust them to God.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: C.M.M.M
In contrast however, no pope has ever explicitly stated that those, though invincibly ignorant of the Truth that is Catholicism, are condemned to hell.

I'm sorry, but Pope Eugene IV dogmatized the Athanasian Creed, which infallibly asserts that explicit belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, Second Coming, Resurrection, Salvation of the Just and Damnation of the wicked is necessary for salvation.

Explicit? The word explicit does not exist in that docuмent whatsoever. It infallibly asserts...

"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic Faith.
Unless a person keeps this Faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

Hence why it ties in so beautifully with Baptism of Desire. Any without full knowledge would not be held to this, though if it was made known to them, they would be then be responsible to act upon it.

Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth (John 9:41)

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: C.M.M.M
...we can safely assume both Justin and Clement believed in Baptism of Desire...

You can assume, and deny the objective sense of dogmatic decrees by favouring the writings and speculations of holy men who would undeniably assent to the same dogmatic decrees if they had seen them. I will stick to the dogmatic decrees, which are truly and properly the Words of God, and reject anything the contradicts them.

The dogmatic decrees are meant to be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. If you interpret them in a way contrary to the constant understanding of the church, would it not be yourself in error?

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: C.M.M.M.
This in no way means 'Everyone saved', as ultimately there must still be a response to the Lord's grace, but the possibility exists and we should ultimately pray that God's will be done with such individuals, and be our Lord's hands and feet in bringing to them the truth of Catholicism.

No. Catholics do not simply pray for people's salvation. They go out into the world and look for them and preach the Gospel unto them as well. But not people who think that water baptism is not the only way, these people are more likely to get lazy.

You must have missed the last part. :wink:

Elizabeth · « **Reply #16 on:** July 18, 2009, 09:31:43 AM »

Catholic Martyr is not a theologian. Is he a preist? Where did he study Theology?

Fr. Stepanich is a highly trained Theologian and has been a priest for over 60 years.

So, I'm sticking with the teachings of the Church by those qualified to do so.

"The Holy Innocents, what is there to say", is the breezy reply by CM...maybe he can't actually explain what is cut and pasted, because he has not the qualifications or authority to do so...

One of the most boring aspects of this crisis is the self-professed, home-grown theologians with no authority to teach, over-riding someone like Fr. Stepanich.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #17 on:** July 18, 2009, 09:45:19 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

No, Elizabeth. I'm neither mighty, nor a theologian.

There are no innocent little babies who are unbaptized Elizabeth. Or do you not believe in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church?

Guess what Elizabeth? You deny the dogma of the inherited personal guilt of original sin. Please repent and convert.
Quote

Thanks for the advice. But you simply do not have the training or authority to teach the Faith. And I know for certain that Fr. Stepanich does, and I agree 100% with his charitable descriptions of people such as yourself.

Dawn · « **Reply #18 on:** July 18, 2009, 10:24:44 AM »

Father Stepanich is a very holy priest. My own priest is his confessor. Father Stepanich is also a validly ordained priest who has never offered the false Novus Ordo Mess. He has suffered greatly for the Church. I will warn all of the "warners" it is you who are in danger when you attack one of Christ's own priests.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #19 on:** July 18, 2009, 12:09:18 PM »

Hi Dawn, I've justre- read your signature line and it sort of clicked. Sounds like the 3rd Secret of Fatima, what they don't want us to know.

But that's off your very excellant topic, of what Fr. Stepanich is discussing.

CM · « **Reply #20 on:** July 18, 2009, 02:59:35 PM »

Holy Martyrs: How many times have I posted this on the forum now, along with the argument about the Good Thief?

Both took place before the Great Commission, before Christ's resurrection.

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."

I do not attack Christ's priests. I do not recognize as Christ's priests anybody who is a member of a false church.

And yes C.M.M.M, I apologize for missing the "hands and feet of the Lord" comment.

Elizabeth I have zero training and I don't claim to. So what? I believe God, not men. Training is offered by men, dogmatic decrees are given by God.

Dogmatic decrees are not to be interpreted. They are to be BELIEVED based on the OBJECTIVE SENSE of the text.

Here it is one more time:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4 (#6, 7), ex cathedra: "God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

"Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false."

Some saints have taught doctrines, which have later been abrogated by infallible decrees. Those doctrines are totally false. And some have taught these doctrines despite having these decrees available to them. They were either in heresy and retracted, in material heresy, their works were tampered with, and yes even quite possibly the pope who canonized them may have believed the heresy also, but never publicly taught it and therefore never become a public heretic.

Does it not occur to anyone here that God speaks in ex cathedra decrees and will not contradict Himself? There is no baptism of desire or blood. Countless decrees, when understood as objective truths, have completely closed the door on them. That is why they are heresy.

CMMM · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:52:32 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

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."

Interesting how it does not say water baptism became obligatory, just the law of baptism, no? Most likely because the same catechism does defend baptism by desire or blood.

That's almost like 'Cafeteria Catechism'! :roll-laugh1:

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Dogmatic decrees are not to be interpreted. They are to be BELIEVED based on the OBJECTIVE SENSE of the text.

Here it is one more time:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4 (#6, 7), ex cathedra: "God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

"Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false."

Some saints have taught doctrines, which have later been abrogated by infallible decrees. Those doctrines are totally false. And some have taught these doctrines despite having these decrees available to them. They were either in heresy and retracted, in material heresy, their works were tampered with, and yes even quite possibly the pope who canonized them may have believed the heresy also, but never publicly taught it and therefore never become a public heretic.

Does it not occur to anyone here that God speaks in ex cathedra decrees and will not contradict Himself? There is no baptism of desire or blood. Countless decrees, when understood as objective truths, have completely closed the door on them. That is why they are heresy.

'... either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.'

What sort of assurance do you have that you are understanding and explaining them in accordance with the church? It sounds to me that it is quite possible that they need to be, perhaps not interpreted, but most definitely explained?

Where interpretation would be an individual understanding explanation would be the church and her teaching on the subject, correct? And if so, the church, as far as explanation is concerned, would consist of the magisterium, the pope, and sacred tradition/fathers.

Off to work, I'll chew this more while there...

CM · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:02:10 AM »

Elizabeth · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2009, 09:37:02 AM »

CM I'm going to make a big, rash guesshere: you are also not a Latinist.

And Fr. Stepanich went over the falsified Council of Trent stuff, origination from South Bend, Indiana.

How would you possibly be able to prove that the Latin is ambiguous?

CM · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:37:59 PM »

Just read the link, and make up your own mind. My friend, from whom I received the Catechism translation .pdf I refer to, had paid a professional Latin translator to analyze that section of text from the Catechism.

Also, I happen to have a natural gift for languages, and learn them very quickly (when I purpose to). I only speak two (English and French, both from infancy), but I have picked up random bits from Polish, Russian, German, Dutch, Albanian, Portuguese, Japanese as well as Latin, from the limited contact I have had with people who speak these languages.

I love languages! :smile:

CM · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:53:41 PM »

And just to clarify what I mean by ambiguous:

When a text is translated from one language to another, it is generally impossible to translate each individual word, while keeping the same structure, since many words have slightly different meanings or contexts between different languages.

For example, "casus" can mean have any of the following meanings: accident, chance, fortune, downfall, a falling, occasion, opportunity / event, accident, violent death

But we know which one the Catechism 'translators' have gradually pushed on us, despite the many alternatives that would not be heretical, that would not necessitate contradicting dogmas.

Also, there are subtle differences in syntax to account for, etc.

CM · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2009, 05:07:59 PM »

Likewise, the word "impediat" was used, which can likely mean any of the following: hindrance, impediment, obstacle, difficulty, entangle, ensnare, obstruct, surround, hinder, prevent.

Yet the 'translators' chose to use the words "make it impossible..."

Come on!

So the Latin:

"...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint."

Was 'translated' (paraphrased) to say:

"should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

When it can and should rightly have been translated to say something more like this (to avoid heresy):

"should any unforeseen hindrance or difficulty obstruct adults from being washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Understood thus, it doesn't say that a person who DIES WITHOUT BAPTISM goes to heaven, but that such a person may overcome their difficulties in obtaining the sacrament.

The Catholic truth, that God will get His sacrament to those whom He deems worthy, no matter what worldly obstacles they may need to overcome (as Vladimir points out, Caius of Korea, who I would like to research more, is a good example). Who else would He deem worthy, if not those who truly repent of their sins and desire to love and to serve Him?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2009, 05:59:14 PM »

Your "sources", your translations and most importantly your borrowed interpretations of Catholic Theology prove nothing. Who exactly is your "translator"?

How about a point-by-point proof that everything Fr. Stepanich says is junk?

Which '

Quote

translators' "chose to use the words "make it impossible..."
Quote
?????

:roll-laugh1:

Dawn · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2009, 07:24:25 PM »

As far as the Holy Innocents or the Good Theif, Dismas, you look with your own eyes. But, to Christ all time is the same. Christ can reach ahead to his Passion, Death and Resurrection and apply them as He sees fit. Whether it be to His Holy Mother so that she IS the Immaculate Conception, or to the Holy Innocents so that they receive Baptism of Desire when Christ was still an infant or to Dismas before He resurrected.

CM · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2009, 08:55:21 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

How about a point-by-point proof that everything Fr. Stepanich says is junk?

I already have writings that show his position to be incorrect, point for point. Pick the points you are the most convinced by and post them in a response to this post and I will address them once again here, for the sake of those who may be reading this with good will.