Author Topic: How can you defend the salvation dogma with... (Read 8764 times)

Alcuin · « **Reply #35 on:** October 19, 2013, 06:41:05 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Pelele
You could read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in that way, but i dont see how the same can be said about Singulari Quidem.

Read your OP:

Quote
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

A Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, and even, an atheist, can all hope that they will go to Heaven; such does not mean that they will go to Heaven. I can hope that I will win the Lottery just by playing, but that does not necessarily mean that my "hope" will result in bags of money!

Again, he says nobody can hope for life or salvation outside the Church, UNLESS you are EXCUSED through ignorance beyond your control.

So plainly it says that you have some shot at being saved outside the Church if you are excused through ignorance beyond your control.

How about this - one who is outside the Church through ignorance beyond his control will be brought into the Church in an extraordinary way. God will only lift the veil if one's heart is not darkened by wilful ignorance.

Pelele · « **Reply #36 on:** October 19, 2013, 06:41:24 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Pelele
One the one hand, he says there is absolutely no salvation if you're outside the Church, none, zip, but on the other hand, if you're in invincible ignorance, you have a shot.

Those who were "invincibly ignorant" would still have to end their lives "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." As with a mentally retarded Protestant who was baptized in his/her infancy, they would simply be excused from their ignorance of the One True Faith. On the other hand, perhaps their ignorance of the Catholic Faith would only rise to the level of being a venial sin and not a mortal one, so they would, when they died, go to Purgatory as opposed to eternal Hell.

Yes i agree with all this but the point is that Pius IX seemed to say some people are excused and get a pass.

bowler · « **Reply #37 on:** October 19, 2013, 06:41:46 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Pelele
Why is it that Fr. Michael Muller, when he dealt with Pius IX and I.I., didn't even mention Singulari Quidem, which was the first time the Pope mentioned I.I.? It is the most "objectionable" of the 3, but he didn't even address it.

Maybe it's a corruption of the original Encyclical? Maybe it doesn't appear in the original?

Bob Dimond wrote a whole book about the salvation dogma and he even wrote about Pius IX but he didn't even address Singulari Quidem either.

Why would that be?

Who is Bob Dimond?

"Brother" Peter Dimond of course.

Robert is his real name.

Dimond covers SQ on page 98 to 100 of my older hard copy edition. It is entitled Singulari Quadem, an Allocution (A Speech to the Cardinals)

it says "it is not even an encyclical".

Jehanne · « **Reply #38 on:** October 19, 2013, 06:43:39 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

How about this - one who is outside the Church through ignorance beyond his control will be brought into the Church in an extraordinary way. God will only lift the veil if one's heart is not darkened by wilful ignorance.

Sure, why not?!

Pelele · « **Reply #39 on:** October 19, 2013, 06:44:28 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Pelele
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Pelele
Why is it that Fr. Michael Muller, when he dealt with Pius IX and I.I., didn't even mention Singulari Quidem, which was the first time the Pope mentioned I.I.? It is the most "objectionable" of the 3, but he didn't even address it.

Maybe it's a corruption of the original Encyclical? Maybe it doesn't appear in the original?

Bob Dimond wrote a whole book about the salvation dogma and he even wrote about Pius IX but he didn't even address Singulari Quidem either.

Why would that be?

Who is Bob Dimond?

"Brother" Peter Dimond of course.

Robert is his real name.

Dimond covers SQ on page 98 to 100 of my older hard copy edition. It is entitled Singulari Quadem, an Allocution (A Speech to the Cardinals)

it says "it is not even an encyclical".

That is a different one, it is not Singulari QUIDEM, but QUADAM. They even mispelled it.

Quidem is from 1856 and Quadam from 1854, they are not the same.

I believe Ibranyi said that the Dimonds just say Pius IX was wrong there.