Author Topic: How can you defend the salvation dogma with... (Read 8755 times)

Pelele · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2013, 02:47:45 PM »

Quote from: bowler

It is plain to see by your answer that you do not know enough to discuss the subject, don't keep embarrassing yourself.

Quote
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.

Quote from: bowler

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?

Quote from: bowler

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.

Quote from: bowler

Non-sedevacantists and the Dimonds are the ones who use that.(ad-hominem attack)

It's true.

Quote from: bowler

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.

Quote from: bowler

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.

Jehanne · « **Reply #16 on:** October 19, 2013, 04:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Pelele
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.

bowler · « **Reply #17 on:** October 19, 2013, 05:35:11 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: bowler
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:

Quote from: bowler

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:

Quote
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":

Quote
“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.

Quote
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)

Pelele · « **Reply #18 on:** October 19, 2013, 05:41:15 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Pelele
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Pelele
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.

bowler · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2013, 05:55:08 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Pelele
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Pelele
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.

Quote

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.