Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Pelele on October 17, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
-
...the statements Pope Pius IX made about invincible ignorance?
Of the 3 times he spoke about II, 1 i would say is orthodox, another could be orthodox and the other one seems flat out heretical.
This is the "orthodox" one:
“....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.”
This is the one that could be orthodox but i think it is very ambiguous:
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. 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.”
You could argue he's just saying what other saints have said but in very ambiguous terms, and it's just ambiguous.
The last one i think is "indefensible" is:
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.
So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?
-
...the statements Pope Pius IX made about invincible ignorance?
Of the 3 times he spoke about II, 1 i would say is orthodox, another could be orthodox and the other one seems flat out heretical.
This is the "orthodox" one:
“....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.”
This is the one that could be orthodox but i think it is very ambiguous:
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. 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.”
You could argue he's just saying what other saints have said but in very ambiguous terms, and it's just ambiguous.
The last one i think is "indefensible" is:
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.
So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?
Blessed Pius IX was teaching with the mind of Christ. He reflects Catholic teaching perfectly. The salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed are not compromised by these teachings. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God reveals to those in invincible ignorance what they need to know about Christ and His Church before they leave this world.
TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas
Question Fourteen: Faith
...Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:19-21).
-
The last one i think is "indefensible" is:
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.
So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?
Pope Pius XI does not say that such individuals can be saved, only that they may hope that they will be saved. Ignorance does not save anyone. To be saved, one must end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This is de fide, even if one lacks sacramental Baptism and/or explicit faith in the Four Articles, one must still die at least in "the soul of the Catholic Church."
-
Blessed Pius IX was teaching with the mind of Christ. He reflects Catholic teaching perfectly. The salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed are not compromised by these teachings. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God reveals to those in invincible ignorance what they need to know about Christ and His Church before they leave this world.
TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas
Question Fourteen: Faith
...Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:19-21).
I know that is what St. Thomas and many other Saints have taught, but that's now what the Pope said.
In QCM he doesn't make it clear whether these people who are saved put off their ignorance and believe in the essential mysteries, or whether they are saved in their ignorance "by the operating power of divine light and grace".
Like i said, it's just ambiguous and could be understood either way.
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
-
The last one i think is "indefensible" is:
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.
So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?
Pope Pius XI does not say that such individuals can be saved, only that they may hope that they will be saved.
What does this "hope for life or salvation" thing mean anyways? Does it mean that person in the state of uncontrollable ignorance, dies in his total ignorance of Catholicism, and can then still "hope" he can be saved? Well then where is the dogma that FAITH is absolutely necessary? And not just any "faith" of course.
But what you say doesn't work anyways because ANYONE can hope to be saved.
It would be redundant if that's what he was saying.
Or will you say that the most hardened sinner/atheist/murderer has 0% hope of converting before he dies?
Ignorance does not save anyone. To be saved, one must end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This is de fide, even if one lacks sacramental Baptism and/or explicit faith in the Four Articles, one must still die at least in "the soul of the Catholic Church."
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
-
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.
-
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.
-
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
First off, Singulari Quidem is a fallible docuмent, it is not an infallible decree.
Secondly, Pius IX does not explain how the person can be saved, what he needs to do and learn. For someone to disregard all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and in their place use this fallible, ambiguous, incomplete docuмent, most certainly would indicate that they are choosing the texts and interpreting them to suit their pre-conceived ideas.
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
-
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.
And what does that have to do with anything?
-
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.
And what purposes would those be? I happen to believe in the salvation dogma but i am asking how would you respond to someone saying "Oh there are exceptions! Pius IX said there are exceptions with the invincibly ignorant! So there!"
This whole invincible ignorance stuff is destructive and dangerous.
The second you admit there "might" be exceptions, it all goes out the window. Then people can tell you "you don't know who's in invincible ignorance! you just dont know who can be saved! So don't say you absolutely need to have the Catholic Faith to be saved!"
How much evil and scandal have these statements from Pius IX brought? Countless heretics use these as an excuse, because they do SEEM to teach heresy, otherwise they wouldn't use them.
You have to do "mental gymnastics" to try and "reconcile" them.
1 is ok, the one in QCM might be orthodox, but the one in Singulari Quidem i dont see how you can "reconcile" it.
You cant even demonstrate anything SJB, all you can say is "it seems to you like that but it isnt."
Right.
"It's not because it's not".
-
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.
First off, Singulari Quidem is a fallible docuмent, it is not an infallible decree.
Ah the old "it's not infallible" canard.
Oh so since it's "not infallible" it can be HERETICAL? Anything goes since "it's not infallible"?
That argument is riddled with ignorance and its completely false and Protestant.
Non-sedevacantists and the Dimonds are the ones who use that.
Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent, as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe.
Or maybe you believe Pius XII was wrong there as well?
Secondly, Pius IX does not explain how the person can be saved, what he needs to do and learn. For someone to disregard all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and in their place use this fallible, ambiguous, incomplete docuмent, most certainly would indicate that they are choosing the texts and interpreting them to suit their pre-conceived ideas.
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
Ok so the Pope, the teacher of all Christians, writes an Encyclical and what he says about invincible ignorance is flat-out wrong and needs to be resisted.
Even if he had explained how such a person is saved, isn't that still heretical? He says there is an EXCEPTION to hope for life and salvation OUTSIDE the Church.
What does this all mean except that there is salvation OUTSIDE the Church?
-
It is plain to see by your answer that you do not know enough to discuss the subject, don't keep embarrassing yourself.
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
-
Blessed Pius IX was teaching with the mind of Christ. He reflects Catholic teaching perfectly. The salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed are not compromised by these teachings. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God reveals to those in invincible ignorance what they need to know about Christ and His Church before they leave this world.
TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas
Question Fourteen: Faith
...Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:19-21).
I know that is what St. Thomas and many other Saints have taught, but that's now what the Pope said.
In QCM he doesn't make it clear whether these people who are saved put off their ignorance and believe in the essential mysteries, or whether they are saved in their ignorance "by the operating power of divine light and grace".
Like i said, it's just ambiguous and could be understood either way.
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
This just states that one can "hope" if one is outside the Catholic Church. If he can "hope" then he has not yet been "judged." This does not teach salvation by default, if by that you mean that they die without ever accepting the essential truths of the Catholic faith. Neither does QCM rule out the necessity of knowledge of the essential mysteries.
-
My answers in red.
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.
It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.
First off, Singulari Quidem is a fallible docuмent, it is not an infallible decree.
Ah the old "it's not infallible" canard.
Oh so since it's "not infallible" it can be HERETICAL? Anything goes since "it's not infallible"? ( strawman))
That argument is riddled with ignorance and its completely false and Protestant. (the answer to your own strawman)
Non-sedevacantists and the Dimonds are the ones who use that.(ad-hominem attack)
Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent (it is an encyclical directed to the bishops of Italy, therefore fallible, and it does not explain how a person can be saved), as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe (Exactly, as YOU believe, and not as it is clearly written).
Or maybe you believe Pius XII was wrong there as well? (Strawman)
Secondly, Pius IX does not explain how the person can be saved, what he needs to do and learn. For someone to disregard all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and in their place use this fallible, ambiguous, incomplete docuмent, most certainly would indicate that they are choosing the texts and interpreting them to suit their pre-conceived ideas.
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
Ok so the Pope, the teacher of all Christians, writes an Encyclical and what he says about invincible ignorance is flat-out wrong and needs to be resisted.(strawman)
Even if he had explained how such a person is saved, isn't that still heretical? He says there is an EXCEPTION to hope for life and salvation OUTSIDE the Church. (strawman)
What does this all mean except that there is salvation OUTSIDE the Church?(No, it means that you do not know enough to not discuss a subject that you do not understand)
-
Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
This just states that one can "hope" if one is outside the Catholic Church. If he can "hope" then he has not yet been "judged." This does not teach salvation by default, if by that you mean that they die without ever accepting the essential truths of the Catholic faith. Neither does QCM rule out the necessity of knowledge of the essential mysteries.
So if you are a member of the Church but you're in mortal sin, you cannot hope? They haven't been judged yet either.
When i say salvation by default, yes, it means that someone can be saved who never knew of the Church or Jesus or the Trinity etc., the essential mysteries.
People now say "poor people never knew anything, they had no fault of their own, so they should be admitted into Heaven because they just had no chance".
This all flies in the face of the fact that Heaven is a reward. What are these people being awarded for? For not knowing anything?
-
It is plain to see by your answer that you do not know enough to discuss the subject, don't keep embarrassing yourself.
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
Then prove how i am ignorant, because i do not see what you are talking about.
Oh so since it's "not infallible" it can be HERETICAL? Anything goes since "it's not infallible"? ( strawman))
Strawman? This is the implication of what you said.
If not, why else did you say it's not infallible if not to say that there can be mistakes and errors in the docuмent?
That argument is riddled with ignorance and its completely false and Protestant. (the answer to your own strawman)
Not so. You say it isn't infallible, like as if that means the Encyclical can contain errors and anyone is free to disagree with what he doesn't like and not give any assent.
Non-sedevacantists and the Dimonds are the ones who use that.(ad-hominem attack)
It's true.
Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent (it is an encyclical directed to the bishops of Italy, therefore fallible, and it does not explain how a person can be saved), as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe (Exactly, as YOU believe, and not as it is clearly written).
Well we can see the "explanations" that have emanated since then.
You have almost all the theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions etc.
What does this all mean except that there is salvation OUTSIDE the Church?(No, it means that you do not know enough to not discuss a subject that you do not understand)
I don't know because i don't know. Ok.
-
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.
And what does that have to do with anything?
It means that every human being, without exception, is saved by sanctifying grace, a gift from the Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ; that (sanctifying grace) alone is what allows a soul to enter Heaven, life eternal. Pope Pius IX was, clearly, at least tolerating the opinion that belief in only two of the four Articles of Faith is necessary for salvation, but he was also allowing the opinion that explicit faith in all Four Articles of Faith would be the minimum for salvation. One can read his text either way.
-
Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent (it is an encyclical directed to the bishops of Italy, therefore fallible, and it does not explain how a person can be saved), as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe (Exactly, as YOU believe, and not as it is clearly written).
Well we can see the "explanations" that have emanated since then.
You have almost all the theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions etc.
The explanations that "emanated since then", and the "theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions", are not Pius IX nor his encyclical which is what you are saying says something it does not say nor define further. It is the others who make of it something that it does not clearly define.
It is just like Vatican II, incomplete or ambiguous, and the liberals purposely take advantage of both (VatII & SQ) to go to town interpreting both to their own desires. It is a punishment reserved for our times.
The teaching of "theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions " is a perfect example of chastisement of our times:
The Chosen Chastisement of Our Times
The chosen chastisement for our times is no chastisement. God has abandoned even Catholics to their own desires, even to the point of providing them with clergy that confirm them in whatever sin they desire. Scarcely can you find a Catholic that thinks anything but that we are living in the best of times. Truly we are living in the time described in 2 Timothy:
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
Saint John Eudes wrote in "The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations":
“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...
“When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15) Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge upon the people in consequence of sin.”
Good Catholics get what they pray for.
Catholics who are indifferent, CINO, and fallen away, get what they desire, AS A PUNISHMENT. We have bad clergy today because that is what 99% of Catholics wanted. They wanted priests who let them do and believe whatever they wanted to. That is what they got! What they consider to be great, is in reality A CHATISEMENT from God.
God's worst chastisement is no chastisement, the people are left to do as they please, God has given them up to their desires, and even provided blind guides to confirm them in whatever sin they desire.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things.
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them
(Romans 1:18-32)
-
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.
And what does that have to do with anything?
It means that every human being, without exception, is saved by sanctifying grace, a gift from the Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ; that (sanctifying grace) alone is what allows a soul to enter Heaven, life eternal. Pope Pius IX was, clearly, at least tolerating the opinion that belief in only two of the four Articles of Faith is necessary for salvation, but he was also allowing the opinion that explicit faith in all Four Articles of Faith would be the minimum for salvation. One can read his text either way.
You could read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in that way, but i dont see how the same can be said about Singulari Quidem.
-
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.
And what does that have to do with anything?
It means that every human being, without exception, is saved by sanctifying grace, a gift from the Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ; that (sanctifying grace) alone is what allows a soul to enter Heaven, life eternal. Pope Pius IX was, clearly, at least tolerating the opinion that belief in only two of the four Articles of Faith is necessary for salvation, but he was also allowing the opinion that explicit faith in all Four Articles of Faith would be the minimum for salvation. One can read his text either way.
You could read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in that way, but i dont see how the same can be said about Singulari Quidem.
"Reading it" in any teaching means the teaching is not clear. "Reading it" against all of tradition is a punishment upon those who "liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense". All those Jews, pagans, heretics, and schismatics, that desired to be left alone by the Catholic Church, have been given their wish, and worse, they have been lead to believe that they can be saved.
Pope Eugene IV defined dogmatically that they can't be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, BUT the liberals teach that one can be saved who does not even believe in Christ.
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.
-
Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent (it is an encyclical directed to the bishops of Italy, therefore fallible, and it does not explain how a person can be saved), as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe (Exactly, as YOU believe, and not as it is clearly written).
Well we can see the "explanations" that have emanated since then.
You have almost all the theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions etc.
The explanations that "emanated since then", and the "theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions", are not Pius IX nor his encyclical which is what you are saying says something it does not say nor define further. It is the others who make of it something that it does not clearly define.
It is just like Vatican II, incomplete or ambiguous, and the liberals purposely take advantage of both (VatII & SQ) to go to town interpreting both to their own desires. It is a punishment reserved for our times.
The teaching of "theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions " is a perfect example of chastisement of our times:
The Chosen Chastisement of Our Times
The chosen chastisement for our times is no chastisement. God has abandoned even Catholics to their own desires, even to the point of providing them with clergy that confirm them in whatever sin they desire. Scarcely can you find a Catholic that thinks anything but that we are living in the best of times. Truly we are living in the time described in 2 Timothy:
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)
Saint John Eudes wrote in "The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations":
“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...
“When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15) Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge upon the people in consequence of sin.”
Good Catholics get what they pray for.
Catholics who are indifferent, CINO, and fallen away, get what they desire, AS A PUNISHMENT. We have bad clergy today because that is what 99% of Catholics wanted. They wanted priests who let them do and believe whatever they wanted to. That is what they got! What they consider to be great, is in reality A CHATISEMENT from God.
God's worst chastisement is no chastisement, the people are left to do as they please, God has given them up to their desires, and even provided blind guides to confirm them in whatever sin they desire.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things.
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them
(Romans 1:18-32)
I get that this is all part of the chastisement going on, and of course i agree that the worst chastisement is no phisically evident chastisement but a spiritual one, evident only to those who "have eyes to see and ears to hear", but that's not what we're talking about here.
I wonder how what Pope Pius VI said in Auctorem Fidei might not apply to Pius IX:
[Our most holy predecessors along with highly esteemed bishops and even general Councils] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used.
For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
It is not a matter of the danger of only one or another diocese: Any novelty at all assails the Universal Church.
When the Pope or the Church teach the main purpose is to CLEARLY expound the truth without danger of error.
Clearly an Encyclical cannot be compared to a synod, but it is still authoritative enough.
So how can what Pope Pius IX said be tolerated? 2 of the 3 times he spoke abvout invincible ignorance there was a lot of ambiguity.
-
Well that's not what the encyclical says.
It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.
Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.
And what does that have to do with anything?
It means that every human being, without exception, is saved by sanctifying grace, a gift from the Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ; that (sanctifying grace) alone is what allows a soul to enter Heaven, life eternal. Pope Pius IX was, clearly, at least tolerating the opinion that belief in only two of the four Articles of Faith is necessary for salvation, but he was also allowing the opinion that explicit faith in all Four Articles of Faith would be the minimum for salvation. One can read his text either way.
You could read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in that way, but i dont see how the same can be said about Singulari Quidem.
"Reading it" in any teaching means the teaching is not clear. "Reading it" against all of tradition is a punishment upon those who "liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense".
This sounds like Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity".
So any time we find something heretical, we are supposed to ignore it and just "read it with tradition"?
-
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:
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!
-
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?
-
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:
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.
-
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.
No, it does not say that, because Pope Pius IX, in the very same letter, stated:
. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children. There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[5] (Singulari Quidem, 4)
So, unless you are going to say that Pope Pius IX contradicted himself, anyone outside the Catholic Church who is "hoping" for eternal life must still end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." That is what Pope Pius IX is saying!
-
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?
-
Look what Sanborn says in his docuмent the New Ecclesiology: Docuмentation:
The schismatic and heretical sects are therefore united to an adulteress, in the words of Pope Leo and of St. Augustine. This is quite different from Vatican II’s “particular Church” theory. In the view of the Catholic Church, they are “adulteress Churches.”
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches” will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by invincible ignorance.
According to the Holy Father, it is an article of faith that those who do not possess the Catholic Faith and who are not members of the Catholic Church are going to hell, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.
Therefore those who adhere to the schism of Photius [i.e., the Eastern Orthodox] will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.
Therefore those who are separated from the Catholic Church have the anger of God upon them, and will go to hell, no matter what other virtues they may have, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.
Heretics and schismatics cannot give true adoration to God, because they are separated from His fold. Because they are separated from the Church, they will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.
This is his comment on Singulari Quidem:
Heretical and schismatics sects are not a means of salvation, and those who adhere to them have no hope of heaven, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.
Sanborn's quotes on invincible ignorance are all over the place in that docuмent.
-
This sounds like Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity".
So any time we find something heretical, we are supposed to ignore it and just "read it with tradition"?
Any time we find something unclear from any Father, Doctor, Saint, Pope, we can disregard it, and follow what has clearly always been. Ratzinger is a blind guide, a punishment from God, everything he says is ambiguous and undefined. Pius IX never expounded further on Invincible ignorance.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.
Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all. Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says:
With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.
To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.
He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.
"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.
But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.
We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.
1. This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.
-
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.
-
This is his comment on Singulari Quidem:
Heretical and schismatics sects are not a means of salvation, and those who adhere to them have no hope of heaven, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.
Sanborn's quotes on invincible ignorance are all over the place in that docuмent.
One cannot be unconscious of mortal sin. People who rob banks know what they are doing is wrong; if they didn't, why do they run away?
Does a Protestant who is baptized in his/her infancy know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, and if so, at what age does this occur? Seven? Fourteen? What if the Protestant is mentally retarded?
-
How can anyone with a straight face say that ALL the clear dogmatic decrees on EENS are not to be read as clearly written, and yet tell one that this unclear, ambiguous, undefined, fallible letter's line really means that one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, without desire for baptism, without desire to be Catholic, without explicit faith in at least the Incarnation and the Trinity, and without knowledge that the Catholic Church even exists?
-
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.
No, it does not say that, because Pope Pius IX, in the very same letter, stated:
. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children. There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[5] (Singulari Quidem, 4)
So, unless you are going to say that Pope Pius IX contradicted himself, anyone outside the Catholic Church who is "hoping" for eternal life must still end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." That is what Pope Pius IX is saying!
That's what you would have to say, that he contradicted himself.
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.
It's a clear contradiction just like saying "the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation" and then in the next sentence saying "baptism of desire or blood is a substitute".
The two of them can't be true at the same time: either it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to be baptized and a Catholic, or it is NOT.
-
How can anyone with a straight face say that ALL the clear dogmatic decrees on EENS are not to be read as clearly written, and yet tell one that this ambiguous, undefined, fallible letter's line really means that one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, without desire for baptism, without desire to be Catholic, without explicit faith in at least the Incarnation and the Trinity, and without knowledge that the Catholic Church even exists?
Well that's my problem: how will i tell anyone that you NEED to be Catholic and have the true Faith when a Pope says there are exceptions?
That's why i said this whole invincible ignorance thing is scandalous.
-
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.
Well that's my problem: how will i tell anyone that you NEED to be Catholic and have the true Faith when a Pope says there are exceptions?
There are no exceptions. Pope Pius IX states this clearly.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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?!
-
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.
-
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:
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.
If that's what he would have said in the Encyclical, it would have been fine, but that's not what hes said, and that's the problem.
-
If that's what he would have said in the Encyclical, it would have been fine, but that's not what hes said, and that's the problem.
Well, that was stated at the First Vatican Council, which, of course, came after Singulari Quidem:
To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.
So, we may assume that the above is the authentic meaning of Singulari Quidem.
-
Is the original available anywhere? Was it in latin or in another language?
-
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
You must have been missing the same thing when you were here.
-
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
You must have been missing the same thing when you were here.
Games, games, what a waste of time it is to talk to you.
-
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
You must have been missing the same thing when you were here.
Games, games, what a waste of time it is to talk to you.
You and LaramieHirsh are birds of a feather.
-
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
You must have been missing the same thing when you were here.
Games, games, what a waste of time it is to talk to you.
You and LaramieHirsh are birds of a feather.
I don't know anything about LaramieHirsh, I do know you, and your waste of postings, this being another. You write more one sentence postings than anyone I know. I'd rather get my teeth drilled than have to go through like 20 of your one line postings to find out what if anything you are talking about. You must be posting from a cell phone.
Your are a thread diluter, a thread killer.
-
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
You must have been missing the same thing when you were here.
Games, games, what a waste of time it is to talk to you.
You and LaramieHirsh are birds of a feather.
I don't know anything about LaramieHirsh, I do know you, and your waste of postings, this being another. You write more one sentence postings than anyone I know. I'd rather get my teeth drilled than have to go through like 20 of your one line postings to find out what if anything you are talking about. You must be posting from a cell phone.
Your are a thread diluter, a thread killer.
I'm not here to educate you bowler. That's not possible anyway. Like I said, you and Laramie hold the very same error. Dogmas only (as you read the "as written" English translation) and nothing else. You are the sole interpreter and you have no problem ignoring and denigrating any and all approved teachers in the Church.
-
SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?
You must have been missing the same thing when you were here.
Games, games, what a waste of time it is to talk to you.
You and LaramieHirsh are birds of a feather.
I don't know anything about LaramieHirsh, I do know you, and your waste of postings, this being another. You write more one sentence postings than anyone I know. I'd rather get my teeth drilled than have to go through like 20 of your one line postings to find out what if anything you are talking about. You must be posting from a cell phone.
Your are a thread diluter, a thread killer.
I'm not here to educate you bowler. That's not possible anyway. Like I said, you and Laramie hold the very same error. Dogmas only (as you read the "as written" English translation) and nothing else. You are the sole interpreter and you have no problem ignoring and denigrating any and all approved teachers in the Church.
So how come you reject the explanations that have emanated since Pope Pius IX's time?
As i have read you believe supernatural faith is necessary, so how come you reject those that say that people can be saved in ignorance without the Faith?
Then again, i suppose the question would be, can someone be IGNORANT of God, Jesus, the Church etc. but somehow possess supernatural faith?
I would say no. What would be of contrition? Of giving thanks to God?
This is what i mean by salvation by default, post-age-of-reason people being saved without them even knowing it
-
I take back everything i said against Pope Pius IX, i fear for my soul.
I fear i may be slandering/calumniating him and damaging his reputation.
But on the other hand i want to know the truth about this matter, but i apologize for everything bad i said against the Pope.
My tone and the manner in which i addressed towards him was disrespectful too.
-
Then again, i suppose the question would be, can someone be IGNORANT of God, Jesus, the Church etc. but somehow possess supernatural faith?
I would say no. What would be of contrition? Of giving thanks to God?
This is what i mean by salvation by default, post-age-of-reason people being saved without them even knowing it
Nothing which Pope Pius IX taught contradicted that of his predecessor:
Condemned error: "A faith indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification." (Denz. 2123, Pope Innocent XI, 1679).
For an individual to receive justification, they must have a supernatural faith and they must keep the natural law.
-
I brought this up on another thread once but would like to hear more opinions, this quote from Lefebvre, is it not heretical?
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.”
-
I brought this up on another thread once but would like to hear more opinions, this quote from Lefebvre, is it not heretical?
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.”
Depends who you ask on this forum.
-
I brought this up on another thread once but would like to hear more opinions, this quote from Lefebvre, is it not heretical?
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.”
Depends who you ask on this forum.
You won't find any Father, Saint, or Doctor teaching it, it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, and ALL the catechisms prior to the 20th century. In other words, it is against ALL of tradtion.
However, the opinion, which became prominent in the 20th century, was not a condemned opinion when it was taught to Abp. Lefebvre, and still is not to this day.
Practically all the saints erred in some opinion, we don't follow individuals, we follow tradition, what has always been.
-
I brought this up on another thread once but would like to hear more opinions, this quote from Lefebvre, is it not heretical?
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.”
Depends who you ask on this forum.
You won't find any Father, Saint, or Doctor teaching it, it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, and ALL the catechisms prior to the 20th century. In other words, it is against ALL of tradtion.
However, the opinion, which became prominent in the 20th century, was not a condemned opinion when it was taught to Abp. Lefebvre, and still is not to this day.
Practically all the saints erred in some opinion, we don't follow individuals, we follow tradition, what has always been.
Sounds reasonable, yet your signature line implies otherwise. Do you still also believe the sacrament of Baptism is actually received in ALL cases?
-
I brought this up on another thread once but would like to hear more opinions, this quote from Lefebvre, is it not heretical?
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.”
Depends who you ask on this forum.
You won't find any Father, Saint, or Doctor teaching it, it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, and ALL the catechisms prior to the 20th century. In other words, it is against ALL of tradtion.
However, the opinion, which became prominent in the 20th century, was not a condemned opinion when it was taught to Abp. Lefebvre, and still is not to this day.
Practically all the saints erred in some opinion, we don't follow individuals, we follow tradition, what has always been.
Sounds reasonable, yet your signature line implies otherwise. Do you still also believe the sacrament of Baptism is actually received in ALL cases?
That's the problem with you, you are always thinking something "implies". The person asked a question and I answered it with the truth without prejudice. Obviously, I disagree with the Abp., and side with ALL of tradition. Precisely what I believe is in my signature. Everything I am is brought out to the light.
You on the other hand work in mystery and in the shadows, criticizing others but never clearly revealing what you believe.
Please explain to me just one thing, what exactly do I have to do to set you up so that your postings do not appear to me? How do I set up the ignore feature? I'm sorry, but your tactic of making 20 one line postings to make what appears only to you to be a point, is just too exasperating to follow. Frankly, I'd rather get my molars drilled, than to continue to attempt to follow your style of "communication".
-
Father Joseph Clifford Fenton answers the charge that "the school theology since the Middle Ages has in some way neglected to consider the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ". The concept of "body" and "soul" of the Church comes up in this writing. There have been some less than precise analogies of this concept by Catholic theologians that have confused the issue and have given the Feeneyites ammunition to denounce all that is taught in theology manuals if it does not suit their purpose. It is important to have a right understanding of things in so far as this is possible. This is why the safer course is to go with what Saint Robert Bellarmine, the greatest doctor in the Church on Ecclesiology, says over those who disagree with him, unless a Pope or perhaps another Doctor of the Church were to do so, and this has yet to happen.
-
I brought this up on another thread once but would like to hear more opinions, this quote from Lefebvre, is it not heretical?
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.”
Depends who you ask on this forum.
You won't find any Father, Saint, or Doctor teaching it, it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, and ALL the catechisms prior to the 20th century. In other words, it is against ALL of tradtion.
However, the opinion, which became prominent in the 20th century, was not a condemned opinion when it was taught to Abp. Lefebvre, and still is not to this day.
Practically all the saints erred in some opinion, we don't follow individuals, we follow tradition, what has always been.
Sounds reasonable, yet your signature line implies otherwise. Do you still also believe the sacrament of Baptism is actually received in ALL cases?
That's the problem with you, you are always thinking something "implies". The person asked a question and I answered it with the truth without prejudice. Obviously, I disagree with the Abp., and side with ALL of tradition. Precisely what I believe is in my signature. Everything I am is brought out to the light.
You on the other hand work in mystery and in the shadows, criticizing others but never clearly revealing what you believe.
Please explain to me just one thing, what exactly do I have to do to set you up so that your postings do not appear to me? How do I set up the ignore feature? I'm sorry, but your tactic of making 20 one line postings to make what appears only to you to be a point, is just too exasperating to follow. Frankly, I'd rather get my molars drilled, than to continue to attempt to follow your style of "communication".
My posts are very short because the errors here are obvious.
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.’
-
You didn't answer my only question:
Please explain to me just one thing, what exactly do I have to do to set you up so that your postings do not appear to me? How do I set up the ignore feature?
-
Lay-people should also accept whatever the Church teaches even if they are not sure what it is. We get caught up in places where Angels dare not tread. Instead of making ourselves the arbiters of truth on technicalities that only trained experts are qualified to respond to, we should simply accept the fact that non-members of the Church can be saved because that is an infallible doctrine of the Church. The unschooled debating technicalities, that calls into question what the approved great minds of the Church have clearly taught, harm the Church, as does condemning others on issues you are not qualified to speak on as this confuses and embitters Her members and potential faithful. I speak as one unschooled which is why I present the teaching from a reliable source.
Of course SJB does not fall into a category of "unschooled" when pertaining to his posts on his subjects. He certainly knows enough to be correct when he posts on this topic.
-
You didn't answer my only question:
Please explain to me just one thing, what exactly do I have to do to set you up so that your postings do not appear to me? How do I set up the ignore feature?
My posts are not intended for you (to read and have any effect, at least.) It would be presumptious of me to think I could penetrate your "logic."
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world."
These words were spoken by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet some untrained laypeople and partially trained laypeople and therefore dangerous laypeople dare to oppose what sainted Doctors have taught, claiming it is de fide that there is no such thing as baptism of blood and baptism of desire? It is one thing to admit you are confused on the issue or to admit you are not sure about the teaching. But quite another to insist that those who agree with the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and Popes on the issue, but disagree with you are not Catholic and going to Hell.
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world."
These words were spoken by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet some untrained laypeople and partially trained laypeople and therefore dangerous laypeople dare to oppose what sainted Doctors have taught, claiming it is de fide that there is no such thing as baptism of blood and baptism of desire? It is one thing to admit you are confused on the issue or to admit you are not sure about the teaching. But quite another to insist that those who agree with the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and Popes on the issue, but disagree with you are not Catholic and going to Hell.
For curiosity sake, what do you think St. Thomas would've said, keeping in mind his words: If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." if he were to have learned that 275 years after his death of the Council of Trent infallibly teaching:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Would he insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
-
Saint Thomas taught implicit faith, even for those who lived after the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament. (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.106, a.1, ad 3)
It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Mat. 28:19: “Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8)
Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: “Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again”. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7, ad 3)
Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.10, a.4, ad 3)
Though all do not know explicitly the power of the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit faith, as stated above (q. 2, AA 6,7). (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.85 a.4, ad 2)
Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.66, a.6, ad 2)
-
God left us a treasury of graces which can be applied to non-members of the Church and help bring them to salvation through conversion or through being attached to the Church at the moment of death. It is quite humbling to consider how just one Ave uttered from our lips, or indulgence applied for a soul who is not a member of the Church, or a soul of God's choice, can be enough to be the difference between its salvation and damnation. You and I can be the difference between whether one is faithfully departed or not. We all should pray for the gift of perseverance and for a happy death.
-
God left us a treasury of graces which can be applied to non-members of the Church and help bring them to salvation through conversion or through being attached to the Church at the moment of death. It is quite humbling to consider how just one Ave uttered from our lips, or indulgence applied for a soul who is not a member of the Church, or a soul of God's choice, can be enough to be the difference between its salvation and damnation. You and I can be the difference between whether one is faithfully departed or not. We all should pray for the gift of perseverance and for a happy death.
can you give me an example of what happens in detail here " being attached to the Church at the moment of death"
would this involve baptism? any creeds to believe in..if it's at the moment of death and the non believer is incapacitated in some way is there any chance he can truly convert and make it to heaven?
-
As we know, some things will be accomplished whether we pray for it or not. Others won't be accomplished no matter how much we pray for it.
The third category is that some things won't be accomplished apart from our prayers. That one Ave from an individual's lips can be what leads a soul to have the proper disposition at death to die in a state of sanctifying grace. No prayer is wasted but some of our prayers will benefit the mystical body of Christ in a way that is different than what we are asking. One might ask that his leg heal, another that his dog stop biting him, another still that the media will go away, but these prayers if not in conformity to God's will, will be applied by God to where they will be best utilized; such as to the benefit of a soul in Purgatory or to one on their death bed. We will have no idea what a difference our prayers have made until we reach our end.
"Yet this, also, must be held, marvelous though it may seem: Christ has need of His members. First, because the person of Jesus Christ is represented by the Supreme Pontiff, who in turn must call on others to share much of his solicitude lest he be overwhelmed by the burden of his pastoral office, and must be helped daily by the prayers of the Church. Moreover as our Savior does not rule the Church directly in a visible manner, He wills to be helped by the members of His Body in carrying out the work of redemption. That is not because He is indigent and weak, but rather because He has so willed it for the greater glory of His spotless Spouse. Dying on the Cross He left to His Church the immense treasury of the Redemption, towards which she contributed nothing. But when those graces come to be distributed, not only does He share this work of sanctification with His Church, but He wills that in some way it be due to her action. This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention and on the cooperation of pastors of souls and of the faithful, especially of fathers and mothers of families, a cooperation which they must offer to our Divine Savior as though they were His associates."
(Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII)
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world."
These words were spoken by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet some untrained laypeople and partially trained laypeople and therefore dangerous laypeople dare to oppose what sainted Doctors have taught, claiming it is de fide that there is no such thing as baptism of blood and baptism of desire? It is one thing to admit you are confused on the issue or to admit you are not sure about the teaching. But quite another to insist that those who agree with the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and Popes on the issue, but disagree with you are not Catholic and going to Hell.
For curiosity sake, what do you think St. Thomas would've said, keeping in mind his words: If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." if he were to have learned that 275 years after his death of the Council of Trent infallibly teaching:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Would he insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
Of course these canons can and has been misunderstood by YOU. Again, show us an EXPLANATION of THESE canons by an approved teacher in the Church that matches your distorted lonely view.
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world."
These words were spoken by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet some untrained laypeople and partially trained laypeople and therefore dangerous laypeople dare to oppose what sainted Doctors have taught, claiming it is de fide that there is no such thing as baptism of blood and baptism of desire? It is one thing to admit you are confused on the issue or to admit you are not sure about the teaching. But quite another to insist that those who agree with the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and Popes on the issue, but disagree with you are not Catholic and going to Hell.
For curiosity sake, what do you think St. Thomas would've said, keeping in mind his words: If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." if he were to have learned that 275 years after his death of the Council of Trent infallibly teaching:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Would he insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
Of course these canons can and has been misunderstood by YOU. Again, show us an EXPLANATION of THESE canons by an approved teacher in the Church that matches your distorted lonely view.
Of course I do not expect YOU to comprehend what explicit definitions dictate we are bound to believe - so why don't you take the wise advise of keeping your ignorant mouth shut until you have something worthwhile to say?
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world."
These words were spoken by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet some untrained laypeople and partially trained laypeople and therefore dangerous laypeople dare to oppose what sainted Doctors have taught, claiming it is de fide that there is no such thing as baptism of blood and baptism of desire? It is one thing to admit you are confused on the issue or to admit you are not sure about the teaching. But quite another to insist that those who agree with the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and Popes on the issue, but disagree with you are not Catholic and going to Hell.
For curiosity sake, what do you think St. Thomas would've said, keeping in mind his words: If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." if he were to have learned that 275 years after his death of the Council of Trent infallibly teaching:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Would he insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
Of course these canons can and has been misunderstood by YOU. Again, show us an EXPLANATION of THESE canons by an approved teacher in the Church that matches your distorted lonely view.
Of course I do not expect YOU to comprehend what explicit definitions dictate we are bound to believe - so why don't you take the wise advise of keeping your ignorant mouth shut until you have something worthwhile to say?
Again, show us an EXPLANATION of THESE canons by an approved teacher in the Church that matches your distorted lonely view. If your view is the orthodox one, it ought to be easy for you to answer with some sources that EXPLAIN what you believe.
-
God left us a treasury of graces which can be applied to non-members of the Church and help bring them to salvation through conversion or through being attached to the Church at the moment of death. It is quite humbling to consider how just one Ave uttered from our lips, or indulgence applied for a soul who is not a member of the Church, or a soul of God's choice, can be enough to be the difference between its salvation and damnation. You and I can be the difference between whether one is faithfully departed or not. We all should pray for the gift of perseverance and for a happy death.
can you give me an example of what happens in detail here " being attached to the Church at the moment of death"
would this involve baptism? any creeds to believe in..if it's at the moment of death and the non believer is incapacitated in some way is there any chance he can truly convert and make it to heaven?
A non-member of the Catholic Church/the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, and there are no exceptions to this Dogma, can die within the Church in a state of sanctifying grace.
Sanctifying grace cannot be obtained outside the Church but actual graces can. Actual graces nudge the good willed soul toward membership within the Church. If such as soul is on his way to becoming a member of the Church and dies before this actually happens he can be saved within the Church through his attachment to it by desire.
Inculpable ignorance by itself does not save a person. Much more is needed. Desire to be within the Church by itself does not save a person either by itself in combined with inculpable ignorance. Neither inculpable ignorance nor desire saves anyone.
For it to be possible for a non-member to be saved attached to the Church or "within" it one must have an effective desire to enter it. This means that the person believes, with a supernatural faith, that God exists and that He rewards good and evil and at least implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation at a very minimum for salvation to even be possible. No one can be saved without a supernatural Faith. But even this is not enough for a non-member to be saved within the Catholic Church or from him to be brought to safety by the vessel/Church he is attached to.
He must also love God with the love of benevolence. He must love God with the love of supernatural charity above all things and desire to conform to His will.
But not just a loose desire to do God's will. He must actually try his best throughout his life to do God's will.
An example of an ineffective desire by analogy would be if I desired to go to New York. "Boy I sure wish I could go to New York" but do nothing about it.
"Boy I sure hope I'm doing what I should to get to Heaven."
But desiring to get to the right destination by itself is not enough, even if you are not sure where the destination is or how to get there. One can have an effective desire to get to New York even if, through no fault of his own, he does not know where it is or how to get there or even the name of the place where he wants to be if he starts asking people, "where is 'the big city' and how do I get there?
"I need to get on a plane? How do I do this? Tickets? Where can I get them? How much do they cost? I don't have any money. Do you know where I can get a job?"
"How do I get to Heaven? I have die within the Church? Which Church? The Catholic Church? Why the Catholic Church? Because God founded it? How did He found it? Etc. She teaches I can't have sex outside of marriage or use conception prevention?"
Here the good willed are separated from the bad willed:
Either:
"Oh boy! The Catholic Church can't be right"
Or:
"Okay, if it is God's will I will comply." "How do I become a member?" "I need to get baptized? Okay, let's do it. I have to learn catechism first? When can I start?"
You can see the difference between an ineffective desire and an effective desire here can't you?
Did you see in the above example where he could have become willfully blind or ignorant and been damned for that culpable ignorance?
Now if our good willed person dies on any step of the journey in a state of sanctifying grace he dies within the Church and goes to Heaven, probably after some Purgatory time unless he is martyred for the Faith whereby he will go straight to Heaven.
But this good willed person, and our example must actually be good willed in the eyes of God, our eyes do not matter here, he will, at the very least have a supernatural Faith in God's existence based upon God's own revelation and believe that God rewards good and punishes evil. He will try his best throughout His life to conform to God's will and love God with the love of charity, loving Him above all things and being willing to suffer all rather than to offend Him. So long as he has this effective desire, even if he has mistaken notions of what God's will actually is, and so long as he tries his best to do God's will he is on the road to salvation.
Each and every human being in existence is either in the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Satan. There is no other place for them to be located.
Those who have an aversion to God by willing something or loving something more than God are in the Kingdom of Satan, whether they realize it or not, and if they die in that state will surely be damned.
Those who have a supernatural faith and a perfect charity and will to do God's will and try their best to do God's will throughout their life can only accomplish such things while in a state of sanctifying grace. It is impossible to love God with the love of charity and to continue to try your best to do His will for an extended period of time without being in a state of sanctifying grace according to Saint Thomas and others. And one cannot be in a state of sanctifying grace while being outside the Church. But as we have seen non-members of the Church can be attached to that Church or theologically "within" her so long as all the other prerequisites are present.
Maybe some get into Heaven after only working one hour same as those who worked twelve. But those of us who worked twelve should not complain about it. God will have mercy on whom He has mercy.
God does not give a person the actual graces needed to join the Church without giving such a person the ability and means to accomplish that goal. God does not cut down the good willed and damn him through no fault of his own even as he was trying his best to do God’s will and was on a journey that would have led to formal membership in the Church were he allowed to continue. God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. He is not an arbitrary tyrant who excludes the heart and only looks at the letter. “No water Baptism, too bad for you.” The good willed are not damned any more than the bad willed are saved. It comes down to the heart, supernatural faith and charity which encompasses willing to do God's will, whatever it is and trying your best to do it and preferring to suffer anything rather than to offend Him. God will not damn such a person anymore than he will save one who goes to daily Mass, prays 15 decades of the Rosary daily but dies in a state of mortal sin.
Does any of this seem plausible?
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
-
It is near impossible to defend the Dogma of Salvation in this age of sentimental theology. All of these good persons and ignorant natives now possess the abilities to exhibit supernatural virtues without Baptism or Faith.
It is we who have these things who must fear for our end. We who hold these uncharitable beliefs.
-
It is near impossible to defend the Dogma of Salvation in this age of sentimental theology. All of these good persons and ignorant natives now possess the abilities to exhibit supernatural virtues without Baptism or Faith.
It is we who have these things who must fear for our end. We who hold these uncharitable beliefs.
I present objective facts alone. You can do with them as you will.
-
God saves all through the Roman Catholic Church. Sanctifying grace comes to all who obtain it through the Roman Catholic Church, through the offering of Mass and as a result of your prayers and mine. Non-members of the Roman Catholic Church can be joined to God through the Roman Catholic Church without realizing it. God knows, and there is no need for the unschooled to speculate, and less need for us to "impose" those speculations on others.
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
-
God saves all through the Roman Catholic Church. Sanctifying grace comes to all who obtain it through the Roman Catholic Church, through the offering of Mass and as a result of your prayers and mine. Non-members of the Roman Catholic Church can be joined to God through the Roman Catholic Church without realizing it. God knows, and there is no need for the unschooled to speculate, and less need for us to "impose" those speculations on others.
Typical liberal double talk there LOT. Same compromising garbage that got us in this crisis in the first place.
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you EVER answer ANY question EVER - even only just one time?
You are a lost cause if you need defined canons taught to you in such a way that they are made to teach what they do not say.
-
For our part if we do what we can to convert people they will be validly baptized if they have not been already. We fearlessly state the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members can be saved by that Church at the moment of death due to their attachment to Her, noting that they become actual members at the moment of death.
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you EVER answer ANY question EVER - even only just one time?
You are a lost cause if you need defined canons taught to you in such a way that they are made to teach what they do not say.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
-
If approved and properly trained theologians racked their brains over the technicalities of these issues, who are we to proclaim de fide anything other than what the Church has defined. Namely, that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members of that Church can be saved. Anything else is a trap of the Devil to get us to fight each other instead of uniting to convert the world so we do not have to worry if they are members of that Church, inside that Church, joined to that Church, part of the soul of the Church, etc. or not.
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you EVER answer ANY question EVER - even only just one time?
You are a lost cause if you need defined canons taught to you in such a way that they are made to teach what they do not say.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you reply with an answer to my question or not?
-
If approved and properly trained theologians racked their brains over the technicalities of these issues, who are we to proclaim de fide anything other than what the Church has defined. Namely, that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members of that Church can be saved. Anything else is a trap of the Devil to get us to fight each other instead of uniting to convert the world so we do not have to worry if they are members of that Church, inside that Church, joined to that Church, part of the soul of the Church, etc. or not.
Non members of that Church can be saved? As I said, NO thinking through and through.
-
Any of my own writing could be erroneous or could explain a truth in a faulty manner, but this is less likely when coming from the greatest theologian of the 20th Century, Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, S.T.D.:
"The recent Encyclical Mystici Corporis has naturally aroused a great deal of interest in the teaching about Christ's Mystical Body. One curious by-product of that interest has been the frequently repeated assertion that the school theology since the Middle Ages has in some way neglected to consider the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ. That is a serious charge. It deserves attention.
Does anyone disagree with the above statement?
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you EVER answer ANY question EVER - even only just one time?
You are a lost cause if you need defined canons taught to you in such a way that they are made to teach what they do not say.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you reply with an answer to my question or not?
I'm asking YOU where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for YOU, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way YOU believe them to be.
You have no source for your beliefs because they are not Catholic beliefs.
-
"The implication seems to be that the writers of theological works used in seminaries and universities since the Middle Ages have failed to bring out the truths presented in the dogmatic portion of the Mystici Corporis. If the accusation has any legitimate foundation then the Encyclical should contain a teaching utterly alien to the literature of school theology from the middle fifteenth century until at least the beginning of the twentieth. The analysis of the Mystici Corporis text will show whether the charge is justified or not.
Fenton
Is Fenton's assessment correct?
-
Just this once, why don't you answer your own question by actually answering my question just this one time? Just this one time or is that asking too much from you?
Would St. Thomas insist that the canons do not mean what they say and appeal to the teachings of St. Ambrose(?) to explain their "real" meanings - or would he "submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church" and in obedience accept the defined doctrine without exception?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you EVER answer ANY question EVER - even only just one time?
You are a lost cause if you need defined canons taught to you in such a way that they are made to teach what they do not say.
I'm asking you where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for you, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way you believe them to be.
Will you reply with an answer to my question or not?
I'm asking YOU where you learned what you believe. It should be easy for YOU, but it isn't simply because NOBODY explains things the way YOU believe them to be.
You have no source for your beliefs because they are not Catholic beliefs.
Why do you say NOBODY explains things the way I believe them? - The Fathers of the Council of Trent is the source - they explain them the way they were meant to be understood, which is why I believe them, I mean honestly, they could not teach any clearer.
You do not agree with Trent's explicit teaching so you strive to weasel out of it every possible way that you can - which is why you refuse to answer the speculative question I asked.
-
Why do you say NOBODY explains things the way I believe them? - The Fathers of the Council of Trent is the source - they explain them the way they were meant to be understood, which is why I believe them, I mean honestly, they could not teach any clearer.
You do not agree with Trent's explicit teaching so you strive to weasel out of it every possible way that you can - which is why you refuse to answer the speculative question I asked.
Show us an explanation that isn't just you repeating the canons.
-
Answer the question.
-
Answer the question.
You don't have a real question; I do. I know you can't answer, because you are all alone in your opinion.
-
It is a real question - you just won't answer it.
As I said, Trent explains it as it is to be understood - they do this precisely so that you do not do what you are doing and so that it cannot be interpreted into teaching something it does not teach.
Whether done on purpose or not, you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a definition, one either accepts it or rejects it. As or me, I accept it as Trent teaches it.
You reject Trent's definitions for a teaching which teaches something completely contradictory, all the while insisting you are doing no such thing. All the while claiming that you are following the teaching of the Church - well, helloooooo, what is Trent if not "the Church"? What is Trent if not the supreme authority over all the Fathers forever? Why would Trent risk relying on anyone else to interpret defined dogma - that is how errors spread.
You wish to think the Holy Ghost through Trent was either incompetent or incapable of teaching precisely what it meant to teach in words the whole world can understand and accept *for the good of their salvation* - or reject under the pretense that a better and a more profound understanding avails somewhere - yours is an idea which V1 explicitly condemned.
-
God left us a treasury of graces which can be applied to non-members of the Church and help bring them to salvation through conversion or through being attached to the Church at the moment of death. It is quite humbling to consider how just one Ave uttered from our lips, or indulgence applied for a soul who is not a member of the Church, or a soul of God's choice, can be enough to be the difference between its salvation and damnation. You and I can be the difference between whether one is faithfully departed or not. We all should pray for the gift of perseverance and for a happy death.
can you give me an example of what happens in detail here " being attached to the Church at the moment of death"
would this involve baptism? any creeds to believe in..if it's at the moment of death and the non believer is incapacitated in some way is there any chance he can truly convert and make it to heaven?
A non-member of the Catholic Church/the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, and there are no exceptions to this Dogma, can die within the Church in a state of sanctifying grace.
Sanctifying grace cannot be obtained outside the Church but actual graces can. Actual graces nudge the good willed soul toward membership within the Church. If such as soul is on his way to becoming a member of the Church and dies before this actually happens he can be saved within the Church through his attachment to it by desire.
Inculpable ignorance by itself does not save a person. Much more is needed. Desire to be within the Church by itself does not save a person either by itself in combined with inculpable ignorance. Neither inculpable ignorance nor desire saves anyone.
For it to be possible for a non-member to be saved attached to the Church or "within" it one must have an effective desire to enter it. This means that the person believes, with a supernatural faith, that God exists and that He rewards good and evil and at least implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation at a very minimum for salvation to even be possible. No one can be saved without a supernatural Faith. But even this is not enough for a non-member to be saved within the Catholic Church or from him to be brought to safety by the vessel/Church he is attached to.
He must also love God with the love of benevolence. He must love God with the love of supernatural charity above all things and desire to conform to His will.
But not just a loose desire to do God's will. He must actually try his best throughout his life to do God's will.
An example of an ineffective desire by analogy would be if I desired to go to New York. "Boy I sure wish I could go to New York" but do nothing about it.
"Boy I sure hope I'm doing what I should to get to Heaven."
But desiring to get to the right destination by itself is not enough, even if you are not sure where the destination is or how to get there. One can have an effective desire to get to New York even if, through no fault of his own, he does not know where it is or how to get there or even the name of the place where he wants to be if he starts asking people, "where is 'the big city' and how do I get there?
"I need to get on a plane? How do I do this? Tickets? Where can I get them? How much do they cost? I don't have any money. Do you know where I can get a job?"
"How do I get to Heaven? I have die within the Church? Which Church? The Catholic Church? Why the Catholic Church? Because God founded it? How did He found it? Etc. She teaches I can't have sex outside of marriage or use conception prevention?"
Here the good willed are separated from the bad willed:
Either:
"Oh boy! The Catholic Church can't be right"
Or:
"Okay, if it is God's will I will comply." "How do I become a member?" "I need to get baptized? Okay, let's do it. I have to learn catechism first? When can I start?"
You can see the difference between an ineffective desire and an effective desire here can't you?
Did you see in the above example where he could have become willfully blind or ignorant and been damned for that culpable ignorance?
Now if our good willed person dies on any step of the journey in a state of sanctifying grace he dies within the Church and goes to Heaven, probably after some Purgatory time unless he is martyred for the Faith whereby he will go straight to Heaven.
But this good willed person, and our example must actually be good willed in the eyes of God, our eyes do not matter here, he will, at the very least have a supernatural Faith in God's existence based upon God's own revelation and believe that God rewards good and punishes evil. He will try his best throughout His life to conform to God's will and love God with the love of charity, loving Him above all things and being willing to suffer all rather than to offend Him. So long as he has this effective desire, even if he has mistaken notions of what God's will actually is, and so long as he tries his best to do God's will he is on the road to salvation.
Each and every human being in existence is either in the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Satan. There is no other place for them to be located.
Those who have an aversion to God by willing something or loving something more than God are in the Kingdom of Satan, whether they realize it or not, and if they die in that state will surely be damned.
Those who have a supernatural faith and a perfect charity and will to do God's will and try their best to do God's will throughout their life can only accomplish such things while in a state of sanctifying grace. It is impossible to love God with the love of charity and to continue to try your best to do His will for an extended period of time without being in a state of sanctifying grace according to Saint Thomas and others. And one cannot be in a state of sanctifying grace while being outside the Church. But as we have seen non-members of the Church can be attached to that Church or theologically "within" her so long as all the other prerequisites are present.
Maybe some get into Heaven after only working one hour same as those who worked twelve. But those of us who worked twelve should not complain about it. God will have mercy on whom He has mercy.
God does not give a person the actual graces needed to join the Church without giving such a person the ability and means to accomplish that goal. God does not cut down the good willed and damn him through no fault of his own even as he was trying his best to do God’s will and was on a journey that would have led to formal membership in the Church were he allowed to continue. God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. He is not an arbitrary tyrant who excludes the heart and only looks at the letter. “No water Baptism, too bad for you.” The good willed are not damned any more than the bad willed are saved. It comes down to the heart, supernatural faith and charity which encompasses willing to do God's will, whatever it is and trying your best to do it and preferring to suffer anything rather than to offend Him. God will not damn such a person anymore than he will save one who goes to daily Mass, prays 15 decades of the Rosary daily but dies in a state of mortal sin.
Does any of this seem plausible?
The thing is as I see it,if there is this good willed person, who wants to be catholic, wants to be baptised, wouldn't God in His merciful way allow this person to be baptised before his death?
can you explain in more detail your following quotes
"Non-members of the Roman Catholic Church can be joined to God through the Roman Catholic Church without realizing it."
how can this happen, what is the thought process of the jew who can be joined to God through the Church without realizing it? I have a hard time understanding what you are precisely talking about
"noting that they become actual members at the moment of death."
again,pls explain this to me, what happened to this person before dying, did he make a profession of gfaith? was he baptised?
"and that non-members of that Church can be saved"
pls explain, I thought your position was non members become members at death.or without realizing it.yet still become members......now are you saying non members who stay as non members and die as nonmembers can be saved??
-
It is a real question - you just won't answer it.
As I said, Trent explains it as it is to be understood - they do this precisely so that you do not do what you are doing and so that it cannot be interpreted into teaching something it does not teach.
Whether done on purpose or not, you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a definition, one either accepts it or rejects it. As or me, I accept it as Trent teaches it.
You reject Trent's definitions for a teaching which teaches something completely contradictory, all the while insisting you are doing no such thing. All the while claiming that you are following the teaching of the Church - well, helloooooo, what is Trent if not "the Church"? What is Trent if not the supreme authority over all the Fathers forever? Why would Trent risk relying on anyone else to interpret defined dogma - that is how errors spread.
You wish to think the Holy Ghost through Trent was either incompetent or incapable of teaching precisely what it meant to teach in words the whole world can understand and accept *for the good of their salvation* - or reject under the pretense that a better and a more profound understanding avails somewhere - yours is an idea which V1 explicitly condemned.
If I am in error, you could simply provide some authority that explains the canons the way you understand them. This surely exists, unless you are just flat wrong.
-
God left us a treasury of graces which can be applied to non-members of the Church and help bring them to salvation through conversion or through being attached to the Church at the moment of death. It is quite humbling to consider how just one Ave uttered from our lips, or indulgence applied for a soul who is not a member of the Church, or a soul of God's choice, can be enough to be the difference between its salvation and damnation. You and I can be the difference between whether one is faithfully departed or not. We all should pray for the gift of perseverance and for a happy death.
can you give me an example of what happens in detail here " being attached to the Church at the moment of death"
would this involve baptism? any creeds to believe in..if it's at the moment of death and the non believer is incapacitated in some way is there any chance he can truly convert and make it to heaven?
A non-member of the Catholic Church/the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, and there are no exceptions to this Dogma, can die within the Church in a state of sanctifying grace.
Sanctifying grace cannot be obtained outside the Church but actual graces can. Actual graces nudge the good willed soul toward membership within the Church. If such as soul is on his way to becoming a member of the Church and dies before this actually happens he can be saved within the Church through his attachment to it by desire.
Inculpable ignorance by itself does not save a person. Much more is needed. Desire to be within the Church by itself does not save a person either by itself in combined with inculpable ignorance. Neither inculpable ignorance nor desire saves anyone.
For it to be possible for a non-member to be saved attached to the Church or "within" it one must have an effective desire to enter it. This means that the person believes, with a supernatural faith, that God exists and that He rewards good and evil and at least implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation at a very minimum for salvation to even be possible. No one can be saved without a supernatural Faith. But even this is not enough for a non-member to be saved within the Catholic Church or from him to be brought to safety by the vessel/Church he is attached to.
He must also love God with the love of benevolence. He must love God with the love of supernatural charity above all things and desire to conform to His will.
But not just a loose desire to do God's will. He must actually try his best throughout his life to do God's will.
An example of an ineffective desire by analogy would be if I desired to go to New York. "Boy I sure wish I could go to New York" but do nothing about it.
"Boy I sure hope I'm doing what I should to get to Heaven."
But desiring to get to the right destination by itself is not enough, even if you are not sure where the destination is or how to get there. One can have an effective desire to get to New York even if, through no fault of his own, he does not know where it is or how to get there or even the name of the place where he wants to be if he starts asking people, "where is 'the big city' and how do I get there?
"I need to get on a plane? How do I do this? Tickets? Where can I get them? How much do they cost? I don't have any money. Do you know where I can get a job?"
"How do I get to Heaven? I have die within the Church? Which Church? The Catholic Church? Why the Catholic Church? Because God founded it? How did He found it? Etc. She teaches I can't have sex outside of marriage or use conception prevention?"
Here the good willed are separated from the bad willed:
Either:
"Oh boy! The Catholic Church can't be right"
Or:
"Okay, if it is God's will I will comply." "How do I become a member?" "I need to get baptized? Okay, let's do it. I have to learn catechism first? When can I start?"
You can see the difference between an ineffective desire and an effective desire here can't you?
Did you see in the above example where he could have become willfully blind or ignorant and been damned for that culpable ignorance?
Now if our good willed person dies on any step of the journey in a state of sanctifying grace he dies within the Church and goes to Heaven, probably after some Purgatory time unless he is martyred for the Faith whereby he will go straight to Heaven.
But this good willed person, and our example must actually be good willed in the eyes of God, our eyes do not matter here, he will, at the very least have a supernatural Faith in God's existence based upon God's own revelation and believe that God rewards good and punishes evil. He will try his best throughout His life to conform to God's will and love God with the love of charity, loving Him above all things and being willing to suffer all rather than to offend Him. So long as he has this effective desire, even if he has mistaken notions of what God's will actually is, and so long as he tries his best to do God's will he is on the road to salvation.
Each and every human being in existence is either in the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Satan. There is no other place for them to be located.
Those who have an aversion to God by willing something or loving something more than God are in the Kingdom of Satan, whether they realize it or not, and if they die in that state will surely be damned.
Those who have a supernatural faith and a perfect charity and will to do God's will and try their best to do God's will throughout their life can only accomplish such things while in a state of sanctifying grace. It is impossible to love God with the love of charity and to continue to try your best to do His will for an extended period of time without being in a state of sanctifying grace according to Saint Thomas and others. And one cannot be in a state of sanctifying grace while being outside the Church. But as we have seen non-members of the Church can be attached to that Church or theologically "within" her so long as all the other prerequisites are present.
Maybe some get into Heaven after only working one hour same as those who worked twelve. But those of us who worked twelve should not complain about it. God will have mercy on whom He has mercy.
God does not give a person the actual graces needed to join the Church without giving such a person the ability and means to accomplish that goal. God does not cut down the good willed and damn him through no fault of his own even as he was trying his best to do God’s will and was on a journey that would have led to formal membership in the Church were he allowed to continue. God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. He is not an arbitrary tyrant who excludes the heart and only looks at the letter. “No water Baptism, too bad for you.” The good willed are not damned any more than the bad willed are saved. It comes down to the heart, supernatural faith and charity which encompasses willing to do God's will, whatever it is and trying your best to do it and preferring to suffer anything rather than to offend Him. God will not damn such a person anymore than he will save one who goes to daily Mass, prays 15 decades of the Rosary daily but dies in a state of mortal sin.
Does any of this seem plausible?
The thing is as I see it,if there is this good willed person, who wants to be catholic, wants to be baptised, wouldn't God in His merciful way allow this person to be baptised before his death?
can you explain in more detail your following quotes
"Non-members of the Roman Catholic Church can be joined to God through the Roman Catholic Church without realizing it."
how can this happen, what is the thought process of the jew who can be joined to God through the Church without realizing it? I have a hard time understanding what you are precisely talking about
"noting that they become actual members at the moment of death."
again,pls explain this to me, what happened to this person before dying, did he make a profession of gfaith? was he baptised?
"and that non-members of that Church can be saved"
pls explain, I thought your position was non members become members at death.or without realizing it.yet still become members......now are you saying non members who stay as non members and die as nonmembers can be saved??
God's permissive will allows for a person to die before he becomes an actual member. Even though that is opposed to His actual will. God does not force anything.
A non-member who dies within the Church becomes a member of the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant at death.
A non-member can not be "joined to" "within" or "attached" to the Church unless he has a supernatural faith and perfect charity and dies in a state of sanctifying grace, if he dies in this state he is baptized with the baptism of the Holy Ghost otherwise known as the baptism of "desire" and becomes a full fledged member of the Catholic Church Suffering or Triumphant.
-
It is a real question - you just won't answer it.
As I said, Trent explains it as it is to be understood - they do this precisely so that you do not do what you are doing and so that it cannot be interpreted into teaching something it does not teach.
Whether done on purpose or not, you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a definition, one either accepts it or rejects it. As or me, I accept it as Trent teaches it.
You reject Trent's definitions for a teaching which teaches something completely contradictory, all the while insisting you are doing no such thing. All the while claiming that you are following the teaching of the Church - well, helloooooo, what is Trent if not "the Church"? What is Trent if not the supreme authority over all the Fathers forever? Why would Trent risk relying on anyone else to interpret defined dogma - that is how errors spread.
You wish to think the Holy Ghost through Trent was either incompetent or incapable of teaching precisely what it meant to teach in words the whole world can understand and accept *for the good of their salvation* - or reject under the pretense that a better and a more profound understanding avails somewhere - yours is an idea which V1 explicitly condemned.
If I am in error, you could simply provide some authority that explains the canons the way you understand them. This surely exists, unless you are just flat wrong.
There is no "if" about it, you are in error as I have already repeatedly communicated to you. Even you know you're in error, this is obvious - otherwise you would not avoid answering the question I asked.
-
"The dogmatic section of the Mystici Corporis is divided into two parts. In the first part the Holy Father describes the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. In the second he tells about the union of the faithful with our Lord.
Fenton
Does anyone disagree with the above statement?
-
God's permissive will allows for a person to die before he becomes an actual member. Even though that is opposed to His actual will. God does not force anything.
A non-member who dies within the Church becomes a member of the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant at death.
A non-member can not be "joined to" "within" or "attached" to the Church unless he has a supernatural faith and perfect charity and dies in a state of sanctifying grace, if he dies in this state he is baptized with the baptism of the Holy Ghost otherwise known as the baptism of "desire" and becomes a full fledged member of the Catholic Church Suffering or Triumphant.
This is Novus Ordo double speak perfectly exemplified.
A non-member remains a non-member so long as he rejects the graces offered to become a member, or would be offered if he were to accept them.
A non-member dies outside the Church, not within it and has no chance for salvation - that's the fate which awaits all non-members (and even most members).
-
It is a real question - you just won't answer it.
As I said, Trent explains it as it is to be understood - they do this precisely so that you do not do what you are doing and so that it cannot be interpreted into teaching something it does not teach.
Whether done on purpose or not, you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a definition, one either accepts it or rejects it. As or me, I accept it as Trent teaches it.
You reject Trent's definitions for a teaching which teaches something completely contradictory, all the while insisting you are doing no such thing. All the while claiming that you are following the teaching of the Church - well, helloooooo, what is Trent if not "the Church"? What is Trent if not the supreme authority over all the Fathers forever? Why would Trent risk relying on anyone else to interpret defined dogma - that is how errors spread.
You wish to think the Holy Ghost through Trent was either incompetent or incapable of teaching precisely what it meant to teach in words the whole world can understand and accept *for the good of their salvation* - or reject under the pretense that a better and a more profound understanding avails somewhere - yours is an idea which V1 explicitly condemned.
If I am in error, you could simply provide some authority that explains the canons the way you understand them. This surely exists, unless you are just flat wrong.
There is no "if" about it, you are in error as I have already repeatedly communicated to you. Even you know you're in error, this is obvious - otherwise you would not avoid answering the question I asked.
Your opinion is duly noted. Now, why don't you help me by citing a source?
Either you can't (because the citation doesn't exist) or you won't because your errors have blinded you to the fact you could be wrong.
-
"Pope Pius XII begins his first section by telling why the Catholic Church is aptly described as a body. He informs us that the Church is thus described because it is a visible and organized, possessing a visible rite of initiation, visible sacramental worship and visible members. It is called the body of Christ because our Lord is at once its founder, its head and its support. The term Mystical Body of Christ is applied to the Church since it is distinct from our Lord's physical body and at the same time superior to an ordinary society or moral body in that it has a principle of unity absolutely independent of and superior to the members.
Fenton
Is there anything incorrect in the above quote?
-
Your opinion is duly noted. Now, why don't you help me by citing a source?
Either you can't (because the citation doesn't exist) or you won't because your errors have blinded you to the fact you could be wrong.
Right after you answer my question.
-
"In the second section of the dogmatic, the Mystici Corporis speaks of the two types of bonds or communications by which men are joined to Christ within the Church. Those men who are united to our Lord by professing His faith, being subject to the legitimate spiritual rulers He has set over His sheepfold, and partaking in the Eucharistic worship which He instituted, are said to be joined in bodily and visible communication with Christ. The second type of communication is spiritual and invisible. It consists in the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Our union with Christ is perfected by God the Holy Ghost dwelling within us. It is expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is pre-eminently the Act of the Mystical Body.
Fenton
Is the above correct?
-
"In the second section of the dogmatic, the Mystici Corporis speaks of the two types of bonds or communications by which men are joined to Christ within the Church. Those men who are united to our Lord by professing His faith, being subject to the legitimate spiritual rulers He has set over His sheepfold, and partaking in the Eucharistic worship which He instituted, are said to be joined in bodily and visible communication with Christ. The second type of communication is spiritual and invisible. It consists in the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Our union with Christ is perfected by God the Holy Ghost dwelling within us. It is expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is pre-eminently the Act of the Mystical Body.
Fenton
Is the above correct?
You keep asking Fenton if the above is correct - but I think you have the wrong forum - there's no Fenton on CI.
Bad joke, I know
-
The thing is as I see it,if there is this good willed person, who wants to be catholic, wants to be baptised, wouldn't God in His merciful way allow this person to be baptised before his death?
can you explain in more detail your following quotes
"Non-members of the Roman Catholic Church can be joined to God through the Roman Catholic Church without realizing it."
how can this happen, what is the thought process of the jew who can be joined to God through the Church without realizing it? I have a hard time understanding what you are precisely talking about
"noting that they become actual members at the moment of death."
again,pls explain this to me, what happened to this person before dying, did he make a profession of gfaith? was he baptised?
"and that non-members of that Church can be saved"
pls explain, I thought your position was non members become members at death.or without realizing it.yet still become members......now are you saying non members who stay as non members and die as nonmembers can be saved??
God's permissive will allows for a person to die before he becomes an actual member. Even though that is opposed to His actual will. God does not force anything.
A non-member who dies within the Church becomes a member of the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant at death.
A non-member can not be "joined to" "within" or "attached" to the Church unless he has a supernatural faith and perfect charity and dies in a state of sanctifying grace, if he dies in this state he is baptized with the baptism of the Holy Ghost otherwise known as the baptism of "desire" and becomes a full fledged member of the Catholic Church Suffering or Triumphant.
I understand a catechumen who's studying to be a catholic, rejects his Jєωιѕн religion for example...dies before baptism...this would be a case for baptism of desire...I get that, I might not agree with it but I understand someone holding that view...what I fail to comprehend is how that belief leads to this quote which I assume you agree with?
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
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.”
a jew
-
Gooch,
I am supposing you are sincere and truly want to get to the bottom of the issue. If you are you will read the following which is 90% Fenton. Please read the following articles from the bottom up and bring up any quote from Fenton that you either are not sure about or disagree with and we'll talk:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/2013ftt.htm
installment 87: The Allocution: Singulari Quadam
installment 86: The Decree for the Jacobites: Cantate Domino
installment 85: The Dogmatic Decree on Salvation: Unam Sanctam
installment 84: The Dogma of Salvation and the Fourth Lateran Council
installment 83: The Dogma of Salvation in Official Pronouncements of the Church
installment 82: Some Sources of Misunderstanding
installment 81: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
installment 80: Father Fenton's "The Use of the Terms Body and Soul with Reference to the Catholic Church
installment 79: Definition of Faith for the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
installment 78: No Salvation Outside the Church
installment 77: Membership In and Visibility of the Church
installment 76: Definitive Definition of the Mystical Body of Christ
installment 75: On the Mystical Body of Christ
-
"In the second section of the dogmatic, the Mystici Corporis speaks of the two types of bonds or communications by which men are joined to Christ within the Church. Those men who are united to our Lord by professing His faith, being subject to the legitimate spiritual rulers He has set over His sheepfold, and partaking in the Eucharistic worship which He instituted, are said to be joined in bodily and visible communication with Christ. The second type of communication is spiritual and invisible. It consists in the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Our union with Christ is perfected by God the Holy Ghost dwelling within us. It is expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is pre-eminently the Act of the Mystical Body.
Fenton
Is the above correct?
You keep asking Fenton if the above is correct - but I think you have the wrong forum - there's no Fenton on CI.
Bad joke, I know
Why don't you quote the correct explanation if Fenton is wrong ... or is it you CAN'T quote anything because it simply doesn't exist?
-
Gooch,
I am supposing you are sincere and truly want to get to the bottom of the issue. If you are you will read the following which is 90% Fenton. Please read the following articles from the bottom up and bring up any quote from Fenton that you either are not sure about or disagree with and we'll talk:
Why quote something that needs an explanation? There must be a Father, Saint or Doctor in Church history that said clearly and without needing explanations whatever Fenton wants to say. Either Fenton was just not a good communicator (which I doubt), or he was controlled by the narrow tightrope he had to walk to keep his position, his high position in the 1950's and 1960's.
-
Why quote something that needs an explanation?
Yes, actually quote an explanation; something you NEVER do.
-
Monsignor Fenton does not need to be explained, he does the explaining. The below articles are over 90% Fenton. I don't explain him in the articles so much as just letting him present authoritative teachings which HE explains. And he is as clear is possible. It would be difficult for any intelligent person to carefully read him and understand him.
Anyone who is sincere and truly wants to get to the bottom of the issue. Will read the following. Those who believe Father Fenton errs will be able to refute him with properly interpreted authoritative sources. But the below are for those opened to truth not those who have irrevocably already decided the issue in their minds and will disagree over and over again, while ignoring and misrepresenting things they cannot refute:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/2013ftt.htm
installment 87: The Allocution: Singulari Quadam
installment 86: The Decree for the Jacobites: Cantate Domino
installment 85: The Dogmatic Decree on Salvation: Unam Sanctam
installment 84: The Dogma of Salvation and the Fourth Lateran Council
installment 83: The Dogma of Salvation in Official Pronouncements of the Church
installment 82: Some Sources of Misunderstanding
installment 81: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
installment 80: Father Fenton's "The Use of the Terms Body and Soul with Reference to the Catholic Church
installment 79: Definition of Faith for the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
installment 78: No Salvation Outside the Church
installment 77: Membership In and Visibility of the Church
installment 76: Definitive Definition of the Mystical Body of Christ
installment 75: On the Mystical Body of Christ
-
Why quote something that needs an explanation? There must be a Father, Saint or Doctor in Church history that said clearly and without needing explanations whatever Fenton wants to say. Either Fenton was just not a good communicator (which I doubt), or he was controlled by the narrow the tightrope he had to walk to keep his position, his job.
Your quotes sound like any writing of JPII.
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.