Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on March 01, 2014, 06:40:14 PM
-
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
-
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
-
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Knucklehead, NOBODY is saying this, except maybe the only theologians you ever quote or speak of, as in the ones silenced prior to Vatican II, who reappeared and were restored to prominance by the liberals.
You don't even understand what you are arguing against.
-
SJB, you really need to stop with the "idiot"/"Knucklehead" nonsense. There's a very bad spirit at work in you regarding this issue.
You always deny that you reject EENS but then out of the other side of your mouth do exactly that. That's typical modernism, professing orthodoxy on one hand and then undermining / denying it on the other.
-
SJB, you really need to stop with the "idiot"/"Knucklehead" nonsense. There's a very bad spirit at work in you regarding this issue.
You always deny that you reject EENS but then out of the other side of your mouth do exactly that. That's typical modernism, professing orthodoxy on one hand and then undermining / denying it on the other.
You and your like-minded SBC friends don't deserve anything less. I don't have any respect for you and the errors you consistently promote here.
-
You and your like-minded SBC friends don't deserve anything less. I don't have any respect for you and the errors you consistently promote here.
Bowler is an internet troll. He is not here to discuss any issue, he is playing a game. I, for one, have elected to ignore him completely, so that, I will not entertain this individual, nor will I waste precious time on his issue.
-
It is hard to understand the mind that is infected by heresy. I would urge any on here to read St. Alphonsus great work, The History of Heresies, found HERE (http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Heresies%20and%20Their%20Refutation.pdf).
This modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire follows the path of countless others that have disturbed the Church. I hope and pray that those infected find their way out of it.
-
It is hard to understand the mind that is infected by heresy. I would urge any on here to read St. Alphonsus great work, The History of Heresies, found HERE (http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Heresies%20and%20Their%20Refutation.pdf).
This modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire follows the path of countless others that have disturbed the Church. I hope and pray that those infected find their way out of it.
Disturbed the Church?
So says you, the one who despises the sacraments, believes they are optional and preaches against their necessity - and you have the gall to call denying the anti-sacrament, "a BOD", a modern heresy. :facepalm:
You need to revisit your own post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) where St. Alphonsus teaches: The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they [heretics] hold that man is justified by [a BOD] faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
-
It is hard to understand the mind that is infected by heresy. I would urge any on here to read St. Alphonsus great work, The History of Heresies, found HERE (http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Heresies%20and%20Their%20Refutation.pdf).
This modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire follows the path of countless others that have disturbed the Church. I hope and pray that those infected find their way out of it.
Disturbed the Church?
So says you, the one who despises the sacraments, believes they are optional and preaches against their necessity - and you have the gall to call denying the anti-sacrament, "a BOD", a modern heresy. :facepalm:
You need to revisit your own post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) where St. Alphonsus teaches: The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they [heretics] hold that man is justified by [a BOD] faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
I stand by what I said. The denial of Baptism of Desire is a modern 20th century heresy. I am sorry that it has infected you.
When a Pope comes again, will you hear him when he teaches this doctrine?
-
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Notice how Ambrose and SJB and all BODers on CI run for cover when the light is shined upon their real belief. And notice how not one of them has said as is written above in red, not a one. Everything written above is true of practically all BODers ( I have only met ONE in my life that limited his BOD to the strict BOD written in red above!)
-
It is hard to understand the mind that is infected by heresy. I would urge any on here to read St. Alphonsus great work, The History of Heresies, found HERE (http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Heresies%20and%20Their%20Refutation.pdf).
This modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire follows the path of countless others that have disturbed the Church. I hope and pray that those infected find their way out of it.
Disturbed the Church?
So says you, the one who despises the sacraments, believes they are optional and preaches against their necessity - and you have the gall to call denying the anti-sacrament, "a BOD", a modern heresy. :facepalm:
You need to revisit your own post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) where St. Alphonsus teaches: The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they [heretics] hold that man is justified by [a BOD] faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
I stand by what I said. The denial of Baptism of Desire is a modern 20th century heresy. I am sorry that it has infected you.
When a Pope comes again, will you hear him when he teaches this doctrine?
That can never happen - the reason is because Trent already declared the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation. Trent already went into great detail explaining the necessity of the sacraments - you even posted St. Alphonsus' teaching showing that a BOD "is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons" of Trent yet you still reject even that clear teaching. The blinders you wear certainly work.
You would have a pope contradict Trent in order to provide salvation to those outside the Church - but that ain't gonna ever happen. In fact the only popes who have already taught and continue to teach universal salvation are the conciliar popes - which you reject - so that which you are waiting for has already been around for the last 50 years. You are confused about what you are waiting for or hoping for.
-
It is hard to understand the mind that is infected by heresy. I would urge any on here to read St. Alphonsus great work, The History of Heresies, found HERE (http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Heresies%20and%20Their%20Refutation.pdf).
This modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire follows the path of countless others that have disturbed the Church. I hope and pray that those infected find their way out of it.
Disturbed the Church?
So says you, the one who despises the sacraments, believes they are optional and preaches against their necessity - and you have the gall to call denying the anti-sacrament, "a BOD", a modern heresy. :facepalm:
You need to revisit your own post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) where St. Alphonsus teaches: The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they [heretics] hold that man is justified by [a BOD] faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
I stand by what I said. The denial of Baptism of Desire is a modern 20th century heresy. I am sorry that it has infected you.
When a Pope comes again, will you hear him when he teaches this doctrine?
That can never happen - the reason is because Trent already declared the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation. Trent already went into great detail explaining the necessity of the sacraments - you even posted St. Alphonsus' teaching showing that a BOD "is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons" of Trent yet you still reject even that clear teaching. The blinders you wear certainly work.
You would have a pope contradict Trent in order to provide salvation to those outside the Church - but that ain't gonna ever happen. In fact the only popes who have already taught and continue to teach universal salvation are the conciliar popes - which you reject - so that which you are waiting for has already been around for the last 50 years. You are confused about what you are waiting for or hoping for.
You do not understand Trent, St. Alphonsus and countless others did understand Trent, and knew that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. To deny it is heresy.
-
You do not understand Trent, St. Alphonsus and countless others did understand Trent, and knew that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. To deny it is heresy.
Refresh us ,, Please reproduce the exact trent reading that teaches baptism of desire.
D.
-
You do not understand Trent, St. Alphonsus and countless others did understand Trent, and knew that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. To deny it is heresy.
Whoever says that the sacraments are not a necessity unto salvation is anathema - Trent.
Whoever says Baptism is optional is anathema. - Trent
Only heretics say no sacrament is necessary - St. Alphonsus.
The ONLY way you could possible be right is if Trent and St. Alphonsus do not mean what they say.
Again, the popes you await to teach a BOD have already been around for over 50 years - Pope John XXIII, and popes Paul VI, John Pauls, Benedict XVI and now Francis.
Do you understand that?
-
You do not understand Trent, St. Alphonsus and countless others did understand Trent, and knew that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. To deny it is heresy.
Refresh us ,, Please reproduce the exact trent reading that teaches baptism of desire.
D.
We have gone over this for months, do you really want to start again? I have posted the text of Trent many times. I along with many others have posted catechisms and theologians but nothing moves you people.
-
Go ahead ,,, we need the exact reading ... tks
-
We have in fact gone back and forth on this forever.
What's key is that BoD for catechumens keeps getting conflated with the extended BoD that undermines EENS and leads to the Vatican II theology.
At no point have the BoDers come close to demonstrating that the Church teaches the form of BoD which was hijacked by the modernists and turned ultimately into Vatican II.
If LoT, Ambrose, and SJB just believed in BoD for catechumens then they would get very little more from me than a polite disagreement. As it is, they use it to attack the Church's dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church. THAT is what I keep referring to as heretical.
But they keep claiming that their rejection of EENS is backed by what they claim to be the Church's teaching of BoD.
Don't let them keep hijacking the notion of BoD as held temporarily by St. Augustine and a number of Church Doctors. Every single one of these authorities speaks very clearly about BoD for catechumens. Don't let them pretend that if they can bring out some quotes from Church Doctors about BoD that they PROVE their heretical assertion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Don't let them keep distracting by arguing about BoD for catechumens. Ambrose would have us believe that in teaching BoD for catechumens St. Alphonsus was rejecting EENS like he himself does.
-
I like this quotation from Peter Dimonds book (manual).....
The Middle ages
Now that we have shown that the teaching of Tradition is definitely not in favor of baptism of desire, where did this baptism of desire furor that we now see come from?
Why did it become such a widespread belief later on?
It has never been taught by any Council, dogmatic definition of Papal Encyclical to the [/u]Church.[/b]
Most people today think that it is a teaching of the Catholic Church. As stated already, the theory come from the erroneous teaching of St. Augustine and an ambiguous passage in St. Ambrose in the 4th century.
But due to St. Augustine s tremendous stature as a theologian, many of the middle ages adopted his fallible opinion on baptism of desire, despite the fact that it was contrary to the overwhelming belief in the early Church.
When the illustrious St. Benard and St. Thomas Aquinas made baptism of desire their own position based on passages in St. Augustine and the ambiguous one in St. Ambrose, this caused hosts of theologians in the middle ages and down to our day, to subsequently adopt baptism of desire out of deference to their great learning (particularly St. Thomas), a position on the possibile salvation of catechumens who died without baptism which was contrary to the overwhelming belief and liturgical tradition of the early Church, not to mention the Church’s later infallible teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism, John 3.5 and One Baptism.
-
I like this quotation from Peter Dimonds book (manual).....
The Middle ages
Now that we have shown that the teaching of Tradition is definitely not in favor of baptism of desire, where did this baptism of desire furor that we now see come from?
Why did it become such a widespread belief later on?
It has never been taught by any Council, dogmatic definition of Papal Encyclical to the [/u]Church.[/b]
Most people today think that it is a teaching of the Catholic Church. As stated already, the theory come from the erroneous teaching of St. Augustine and an ambiguous passage in St. Ambrose in the 4th century.
But due to St. Augustine s tremendous stature as a theologian, many of the middle ages adopted his fallible opinion on baptism of desire, despite the fact that it was contrary to the overwhelming belief in the early Church.
When the illustrious St. Benard and St. Thomas Aquinas made baptism of desire their own position based on passages in St. Augustine and the ambiguous one in St. Ambrose, this caused hosts of theologians in the middle ages and down to our day, to subsequently adopt baptism of desire out of deference to their great learning (particularly St. Thomas), a position on the possibile salvation of catechumens who died without baptism which was contrary to the overwhelming belief and liturgical tradition of the early Church, not to mention the Church’s later infallible teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism, John 3.5 and One Baptism.
I would only take exception with the fact that they refer to St. Augustine's "teaching". St. Augustine himself never presented it as any kind of "teaching". I would call it a "speculative opinion".
Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart...
He went back and forth on this. And then .. I and FIND. Not a teaching but clearly a personal opinion. Medieval theologians gave this passage much more authority than St. Augustine himself did.
-
I agree... never the less the message is clear,, Baptism of desire or of blood , was never a teaching of the early Church, or is it now.
Thanks to the Dimonds Manual a lot of light has been shown on the subject , backed with Infallable Church docuмentation.
(more to follow)
Oh , and by the way , it say s "fallible opinion"
-
From the Dimonds Manual also..
Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire - Erroneous Traditions of Man
(42)
In this docuмent, I have shown that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. I have also shown that it is only through receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one is incorporated into the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I have also shown that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the words of Jesus Christ in John 3.5 -
Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.-
are to be understood literally: as the are written. This is the infallible teaching of the Church and it excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
However, throughout the history of the Church, many have believed in the theories called baptism of desire and baptism of blood: that one’s desire for the Sacrament of Baptism or one’s martyrdom for the faith supplies for the lack of being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Those who believe in baptism of blood and baptism of desire raise certain objections to the absolute necessity of receiving the sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
So, in order to be complete , I will respond to all of the major objections made by baptism of desire and blood advocates” and in the process, I will give an overview of the history of the errors of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
In doing this… I will demonstrate that neither baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a teaching of the Catholic Church.
Summery
The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Only those who receive Sacramental baptism are incorporated into the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
The Catholic Church infallibly teaches the words of Our Lord in John 3.5, and understood “as written”. Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost , he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.[/i]
Baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not teachings of the Church.
-
From the Dimonds Manual also..
Most people here don't respect the Dimonds.
-
You and your like-minded SBC friends don't deserve anything less. I don't have any respect for you and the errors you consistently promote here.
Bowler is an internet troll. He is not here to discuss any issue, he is playing a game. I, for one, have elected to ignore him completely, so that, I will not entertain this individual, nor will I waste precious time on his issue.
Indeed. and naminga thread by calling your fellow Catholics bad willed liars is, well, pretty bad willed.
-
There are always those who when can t find the truth, will resort to the old attage.. "If I can t find the material to attack the message, "Attack the messenger".
Follow the docuмentation of the Church s teaching by the Popes and the Councils...
-
Director,
Do you really believe that a martyr who dies for the faith without the opportunity to be baptized with water is damned?
-
Absolutly... He is outside the Church...
-
Director,
Do you really believe that a martyr who dies for the faith without the opportunity to be baptized with water is damned?
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra. “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
-
You and your like-minded SBC friends don't deserve anything less. I don't have any respect for you and the errors you consistently promote here.
Bowler is an internet troll. He is not here to discuss any issue, he is playing a game. I, for one, have elected to ignore him completely, so that, I will not entertain this individual, nor will I waste precious time on his issue.
Indeed. and naming a thread by calling your fellow Catholics bad willed liars is, well, pretty bad willed.
The Opening posting speaks for itself. I've been debating with BODers for almost 20 years now, and on CI for some time, and after all of that, I've only known one BODer that restricted BOD & BOB to the catechumen and martyr. One person! It's all there, if there is anything wrong with my analysis point it out. But of course, you are also a BODer, so tell me, are you honest and sincere in talking about catechumens and martyrs and Trent and Alphonsus Ligouri & St. Thomas and such, when you believe and teach that [/u]that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
Read carefully what I wrote:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Notice how Ambrose and SJB and all BODers on CI run for cover when the light is shined upon their real belief. And notice how not one of them has said as is written above in red, not a one. Everything written above is true of practically all BODers ( I have only met ONE in my life that limited his BOD to the strict BOD written in red above!)
-
Director,
Do you really believe that a martyr who dies for the faith without the opportunity to be baptized with water is damned?
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra. “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Sigismund, why do you mention a martyr when you don't even believe that one has to be a martyr for the faith to be saved?
What's so important about discussing martyrs who die "by accident" with no one around to baptize them? I have not heard of one in lik 1800 years.
-
Director,
Do you really believe that a martyr who dies for the faith without the opportunity to be baptized with water is damned?
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra. “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Sigismund, why do you mention a martyr when you don't even believe that one has to be a martyr for the faith to be saved?
What's so important about discussing martyrs who die "by accident" with no one around to baptize them? I have not heard of one in lik 1800 years.
The fact that you "haven't heard of" something isn't proof of anything. The fact is that you hedge on the BOD of a catechumen, knowing full well that by admitting to it, you are also admitting that water baptism is not always required in fact.
You have never produced a source that teaches what you claim, which is vague at best.
Now hearing you've been at this for 20 years, my opinion of you is even more harsh.
Where do you assist at Mass? Or do you?
-
I'm so sick of this attitude. God cannot be prevented by any circuмstances from bringing the Sacrament of Baptism to his elect. I'm so sick of you basing BoD on the premise that God can be constrained by "impossibility". That's basically heretical.
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.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Of course, in your dishonestly, you trumpet the authority of St. Augustine when he happens to agree with you and then ignore him when he doesn't.
-
Director,
Do you really believe that a martyr who dies for the faith without the opportunity to be baptized with water is damned?
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra. “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Sigismund, why do you mention a martyr when you don't even believe that one has to be a martyr for the faith to be saved?
What's so important about discussing martyrs who die "by accident" with no one around to baptize them? I have not heard of one in lik 1800 years.
The fact that you "haven't heard of" something isn't proof of anything. The fact is that you hedge on the BOD of a catechumen, knowing full well that by admitting to it, you are also admitting that water baptism is not always required in fact.
You have never produced a source that teaches what you claim, which is vague at best.
Now hearing you've been at this for 20 years, my opinion of you is even more harsh.
Where do you assist at Mass? Or do you?
The fact is that you are THE TEMPLATE of a bad willed BODer described in this thread. Above you deny a clear dogma “Cantate Domino,” and "talk" about martyrs, when you don't even believe that explicit desire or martyrdom is necessary for salvation. and you can't answer any questions, so you revert to end runs.
There are no BODers here on CI with the capacity or honesty to answer questions like these. This is why they only write insults, ad-hominem attacks, end runs to avoid details, and long copy and paste articles that they themselves can't answer any questions about. Once they are asked questions, they instantly revert to back to the same avoidance techniques.
-
The fact is that you hedge on the BOD of a catechumen, knowing full well that by admitting to it, you are also admitting that water baptism is not always required in fact.
To the BODer the end justifies the means. His end is to justify himself in his desire to believe that anyone who is "good" in his eyes can be saved. His means is anything goes. The BODers mind becomes so accustomed to use his tactic of anything goes, that he applies it to his adversaries. Read the above quote. It is an example of just that.
Here's what I said:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
To the scewed mind of the BODer this means that if I accept BOD & BOB of the catechumen, then I have to accept salvation of anyone. The BODer thinks this way because that is how he uses BOD & BOB of the catechumen, just as a means to achieve his end. The BODer does not believe that explicit desire or martyrdom is necessary for salvation, he is just using it as a vehicle to reach his end. So, he applies it to me, as if I thought like him.
This is called psychological projection, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others.
The problem is that I am not like them. Read what I wrote in red above. Did I say that I believe in BOD & BOB of the catechumen? No! All I said was that if the BODers, were honest and sincere[/b], they would restrict their belief to a strict BOD & BOB of the catechumen, an innocuous theory. All I said was that if they did that, I would not bother debating this harmless theory that affects numerically speaking today, no one. I've said it countless times. to that BODer.
BUT, no, to the scewed mind of this BODEr, the FACT that I wouldn't bother to debate about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, means that anyone can be saved who is of good will. This is no surprise, since, since with the BODer anything goes. BODer are bad willed liars.
-
The fact is that you hedge on the BOD of a catechumen, knowing full well that by admitting to it, you are also admitting that water baptism is not always required in fact.
To the BODer the end justifies the means. His end is to justify himself in his desire to believe that anyone who is "good" in his eyes can be saved. His means is anything goes. The BODers mind becomes so accustomed to use his tactic of anything goes, that he applies it to his adversaries. Read the above quote. It is an example of just that.
Here's what I said:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
To the scewed mind of the BODer this means that if I accept BOD & BOB of the catechumen, then I have to accept salvation of anyone. The BODer thinks this way because that is how he uses BOD & BOB of the catechumen, just as a means to achieve his end. The BODer does not believe that explicit desire or martyrdom is necessary for salvation, he is just using it as a vehicle to reach his end. So, he applies it to me, as if I thought like him.
This is called psychological projection, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others.
The problem is that I am not like them. Read what I wrote in red above. Did I say that I believe in BOD & BOB of the catechumen? No! All I said was that if the BODers, were honest and sincere[/b], they would restrict their belief to a strict BOD & BOB of the catechumen, an innocuous theory. All I said was that if they did that, I would not bother debating this harmless theory that affects numerically speaking today, no one. I've said it countless times. to that BODer.
BUT, no, to the scewed mind of this BODEr, the FACT that I wouldn't bother to debate about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, means that anyone can be saved who is of good will. This is no surprise, since, since with the BODer anything goes. BODer are bad willed liars.
Idiot, it isn't an "innocuous theory" based on what you say you believe. If it is de fide that water baptism is required in fact, and in all cases, then the "innocuous theory" is heretical.
You are just a heretic or apostate troll on a "feeneyite" friendly forum.
-
I don't know why I even allow threads like this...
Probably because I don't read them or think about them too much.
I agree with Ambrose -- there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
I'm not sure where Bowler got his "expanded definition" of Baptism of Desire.
Long story short, I'm not going to try to play theologian and connect any dots. I believe what the Church teaches -- nothing less, nothing more.
It doesn't affect ANYONE on here, much less the participants in this thread. That's what's so jaw-dropping stupid about the whole thing. If you take ALL the BoD threads together and line up ALL the participants that have ever posted even once, I bet you wouldn't find ONE PERSON who wouldn't direct a convert to get baptised with water, etc. Moreover, 100% of the participants aren't going "relaxed" in their efforts to convert others, based on some kind of belief that they're already saved. That's what they do in the Novus Ordo.
So in a group like this (Trads), what the hell difference does it make?
I guess it takes one to know one -- which is why I'm totally baffled that so many Trads love arguing so much. I can't understand it myself.
-
Those who believe that someone with only the "desire" for Baptism an be saved presume two things that the Church has solemnly condemned:
1. That the Sacrament of Baptism, commanded by God and instituted by Christ Lord, is impossible for some to receive.
See Church condemnation:
Infallible Magisterium
Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch 11:
God does not command impossibilities but by commanding you admonish you to do what you can do, to pray for what you cannot do, and He assists you that you may be able. For God does not forsake those who have been justified by His Grace unless He first be forsaken by them[/i].
And
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for a man who us justified, impossible to obtain let it be anathema.
2. That the Sacrament of Baptism could be optional for some (those who die with the desire for Baptism).
See Church condemnation:
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism, Canon 5:
If anyone says that Baptism of optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let it be anathema.
"Baptism of Desire" (or I should say the modernist liberal interpretation of it) is very important and does affect everyone because of its direct and negative implication on the salutary Catholic DOGMA of: "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which must be taken literally, believed, and professed by all Catholics.
-
Those who believe that someone with only the "desire" for Baptism an be saved presume two things...
While we're quoting, I think I'll throw out this quote.
[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
You read things, and you think you know what they mean, and what they apply to.
But do you?
Where did you formally study Theology?
Where did any of you study Theology? (Except maybe Ladislaus -- I know he spent some time in the seminary at least)
Armchair theologians.
-
I don't know why I even allow threads like this...
Probably because I don't read them or think about them too much.
I agree with Ambrose -- there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
I'm not sure where Bowler got his "expanded definition" of Baptism of Desire.
Long story short, I'm not going to try to play theologian and connect any dots. I believe what the Church teaches -- nothing less, nothing more.
It doesn't affect ANYONE on here, much less the participants in this thread. That's what's so jaw-dropping stupid about the whole thing. If you take ALL the BoD threads together and line up ALL the participants that have ever posted even once, I bet you wouldn't find ONE PERSON who wouldn't direct a convert to get baptised with water, etc. Moreover, 100% of the participants aren't going "relaxed" in their efforts to convert others, based on some kind of belief that they're already saved. That's what they do in the Novus Ordo.
So in a group like this (Trads), what the hell difference does it make?
I guess it takes one to know one -- which is why I'm totally baffled that so many Trads love arguing so much. I can't understand it myself.
You should have been a politician. The issue is WHY do you allow persons to promote "expanded definitions" as if they are something less than a very serious error at best. You seem either confused or unconcerned about people speading errors here. These doctrines are CERTAIN at a minimum.
So prove it. Don't allow the discussion. It's your forum.
-
I don't know why I even allow threads like this...
Probably because I don't read them or think about them too much.
I agree with Ambrose -- there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
I'm not sure where Bowler got his "expanded definition" of Baptism of Desire.
Long story short, I'm not going to try to play theologian and connect any dots. I believe what the Church teaches -- nothing less, nothing more.
It doesn't affect ANYONE on here, much less the participants in this thread. That's what's so jaw-dropping stupid about the whole thing. If you take ALL the BoD threads together and line up ALL the participants that have ever posted even once, I bet you wouldn't find ONE PERSON who wouldn't direct a convert to get baptised with water, etc. Moreover, 100% of the participants aren't going "relaxed" in their efforts to convert others, based on some kind of belief that they're already saved. That's what they do in the Novus Ordo.
So in a group like this (Trads), what the hell difference does it make?
I guess it takes one to know one -- which is why I'm totally baffled that so many Trads love arguing so much. I can't understand it myself.
You should have been a politician. The issue is WHY do you allow persons to promote "expanded definitions" as if they are something less than a very serious error at best. You seem either confused or unconcerned about people speading errors here. These doctrines are CERTAIN at a minimum.
So prove it. Don't allow the discussion. It's your forum.
Prove you do not despise the sacraments - start a thread defending their necessity.
-
So in a group like this (Trads), what the hell difference does it make?
I guess it takes one to know one -- which is why I'm totally baffled that so many Trads love arguing so much. I can't understand it myself.
It makes EVERY difference, Matthew. Basically, the entire Vatican II ecclesiology is rooted in the "expanded" BoD. Not the kind where a catechumen who has accepted the Catholic Faith based on the motives of credibility might be saved if he doesn't receive Sacramental Baptism ... but the kind that undermines EENS and states that non-Catholics can be saved via some kind of vague BoD-like mechanism.
THAT is the difference.
I'm surprised that, having been taught by Bishop Williamson, you would essentially state that ideas don't matter. They DO matter. Bishop Williamson hammered that home over and over again. This isn't just pedantic quarreling for no particular reason and with no practical consequences.
If you believe in extended BoD, then you have absolutely no business being part of the Resistance. Bishop Fellay is then correct when he says that there's no substantial error in Vatican II that can't be interpreted in the light of Tradition, because the V2 errors ALL flow directly from the extended BoD. This is a battle against the subjectivism which Bishop Williamson always railed against and which he rightly points at as being at the heart of the V2 errors. But what subjectivism? The subjectivism that makes you Catholic based on sincerity and "nitheness", the kind of subjectivism that LoT, Ambrose, SJB, and Sunbeam promote. It leads to the creation of a Church not unified by one faith but rather a Church of the "nithe". Not a Church of the faithful as the dogmatic definitions of EENS refer to it, but a Church of the "nithe", the Vatican II Church, that naturalist Church, the subjectivist Church, the humanist Church.
In fact, if you believe in extended BoD, you're clearly schismatic for being a Traditional Catholic.
Don't tell us this doesn't matter.
-
Those who believe that someone with only the "desire" for Baptism an be saved presume two things...
While we're quoting, I think I'll throw out this quote.
[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
You read things, and you think you know what they mean, and what they apply to.
But do you?
Where did you formally study Theology?
Where did any of you study Theology? (Except maybe Ladislaus -- I know he spent some time in the seminary at least)
Armchair theologians.
In one respect, though, Matthew, we have all become armchair theologians. Since the shepherd has been struck, the sheep are scattered. One would say, "Go ask a priest." But the answer you get from the priest will depend on which priest you ask, since the priests are as divided on many of these subjects as the faithful themselves. That's the horror of this crisis in the Church. Despite having studied theology, I am obviously no theologian either.
And I engage in these disputes because the truth matters and I'm seeking the truth. As I've stated many times, if these guys were to convince me that extended BoD exists, then I would have to cease being a Traditional Catholic. I would probably then go FSSP or Eastern Rite or something ... just because I find the NO Mass intolerable to my sensibilities.
-
I'm not interested too much in quibbling about BoD for catechumens. Clearly the Church has always tolerated that opinion, and I wouldn't have issues with someone who held to it. But the modernists exploited this concept and used it to undermine EENS and to set the foundation for the Vatican II ecclesiology. This is the theological fulcrum on which everything lies in the balance.
If you look at the quotes in support of BoD, from (allegedly) Trent, St. Augustine, the one Pope, Catechism of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, these all CLEARLY refer to catechumens.
-
Where did you formally study Theology?
I know a man that has a 6th grade education and is worth millions, and has thousands of people employed by him or employed in other businesses that exist because of his company. The man had years ago over 50 medical doctors working for him, (who knows how many today), and lawyers, accountants, managers.... all with Phd's, MS, BS's etc.
There are many laymen who know more about a particular religious subject than any priest in the world, and are consulted regularly by even the pope.
I have studied and debated BOD for 20 years, I doubt there are many priests who have studied and debated this ONE subject like I have. One does not need to be a theologian to know one subject. The seminarians in the SSPX might cover this subject in 2 days.
As a matter of fact, the excuse of "Where did you formally study Theology", has been applied to everything that has been "forced down our throats" that the people of CI complain about (Vatican II, Novus Ordo mass etc.).
The bottom line is that, just because this is not a subject that Matthew, you don't know anything about or care anything about, does not mean that everyone else is on the same boat.
-
I'm not interested too much in quibbling about BoD for catechumens. Clearly the Church has always tolerated that opinion, and I wouldn't have issues with someone who held to it. But the modernists exploited this concept and used it to undermine EENS and to set the foundation for the Vatican II ecclesiology. This is the theological fulcrum on which everything lies in the balance.
If you look at the quotes in support of BoD, from (allegedly) Trent, St. Augustine, the one Pope, Catechism of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, these all CLEARLY refer to catechumens.
Exactly what I've been saying all along.
-
The Opening posting speaks for itself. I've been debating with BODers for almost 20 years now, and on CI for some time, and after all of that, I've only known one BODer that restricted BOD & BOB to the catechumen and martyr. One person! It's all there, if there is anything wrong with my analysis point it out. But of course, you are also a BODer, so tell me, are you honest and sincere in talking about catechumens and martyrs and Trent and Alphonsus Ligouri & St. Thomas and such, when you believe and teach that [/u]that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
Read carefully what I wrote:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Notice how Ambrose and SJB and all BODers on CI run for cover when the light is shined upon their real belief. And notice how not one of them has said as is written above in red, not a one. Everything written above is true of practically all BODers ( I have only met ONE in my life that limited his BOD to the strict BOD written in red above!)
-
I have studied and debated BOD for 20 years, I doubt there are many priests who have studied and debated this ONE subject like I have. One does not need to be a theologian to know one subject. The seminarians in the SSPX might cover this subject in 2 days.
Quote them then. You can't because they simply don't exist and you are dishonest for implying they do exist.
If you can provide no authority, then shut up. If you can't be quiet Matthew needs to silence you and he is derelict in his responsibility to police his own forum if he lets you continue.
-
The Opening posting speaks for itself. I've been debating with BODers for almost 20 years now, and on CI for some time, and after all of that, I've only known one BODer that restricted BOD & BOB to the catechumen and martyr. One person! It's all there, if there is anything wrong with my analysis point it out. But of course, you are also a BODer, so tell me, are you honest and sincere in talking about catechumens and martyrs and Trent and Alphonsus Ligouri & St. Thomas and such, when you believe and teach that [/u]that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
Read carefully what I wrote:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Notice how Ambrose and SJB and all BODers on CI run for cover when the light is shined upon their real belief. And notice how not one of them has said as is written above in red, not a one. Everything written above is true of practically all BODers ( I have only met ONE in my life that limited his BOD to the strict BOD written in red above!)
-
BODers debate about baptism of desire & blood of the catechumen and what Trent "teaches", but they totally deny what Trent teaches, in their belief that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, or Catholics, or martyrs for Christ, or even believe in Christ at all.
As a matter of fact you can replace Trent above with the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, the Catechism of Trent that BODers also quote and then deny.
Is that not dishonesty, hypocrisy?
The BODer first believes that everyone who is "good" in their eyes can be saved. From there he "learns" what he desires to confirm himself in his desired belief. That is why I have only met ONE BODer that restricted his belief in BOD to the catechumen. It is not that they learn about the catechumen and then go expanding it to everyone that is good, IT IS the other way around like I said: The BODer first believes that everyone who is "good" in their eyes can be saved, and then just USES BOD of the catechumen.
-
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
-
Really ask all the BODers just WHY is it that the so called "Baptism of Desire" is important to them. If they are sincere, they will respond that it is to allow the possible Salvation for non-Catholics. It irremediably ends that way. Otherwise, why would it be of any importance at all to them? The prudent Catholic that is open to the remote possibility of BOD for catechumens only - as fallible Church teaching - will probably not waste any time defending it. All CathInfo members are baptized in water. The BODers here defend BOD because it ends opens the door of indifferentianism, invincible ignorance, ad universal salvation. The same unclean spirit of Vatican II. You need not a theologian degree to see this.
-
Exactly right, Cantarella. Which is why I so zealously oppose their false BoD. It undermines and directly contradicts EENS.
-
The subjectivism that makes you Catholic based on sincerity and "nitheness", the kind of subjectivism that LoT, Ambrose, SJB, and Sunbeam promote.
Ladislaus
Since I have no idea what it is you are referring to here, please be so kind as to show which of my relatively few posts “promotes subjectivism”.
-
Straight forward question:
Is here a single BODer that doesn't believe also in " invincible ignorance "?,
-
The subjectivism that makes you Catholic based on sincerity and "nitheness", the kind of subjectivism that LoT, Ambrose, SJB, and Sunbeam promote.
Ladislaus
Since I have no idea what it is you are referring to here, please be so kind as to show which of my relatively few posts “promotes subjectivism”.
I've only known one BODer that limited his BOD & BOB to the catechumen, so you are just like the rest, as I have not seen you ONCE answer this part of thios thread:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
I've been at this 20 years, you are just another insincere BODer.
-
Subjectivism refers to the idea that the Catholic Faith can be had without actual objective possession of the Catholic Faith, i.e. that good intentions lead to the infusion of supernatural faith without someone actually having to hold in their intellect any of the propositions of said supernatural faith.
It's the idea that truth can be possessed and attained to by the will alone without any grasping of it by the intellect.
-
Matthew wrote:
It doesn't affect ANYONE on here, much less the participants in this thread. That's what's so jaw-dropping stupid about the whole thing. If you take ALL the BoD threads together and line up ALL the participants that have ever posted even once, I bet you wouldn't find ONE PERSON who wouldn't direct a convert to get baptised with water, etc. Moreover, 100% of the participants aren't going "relaxed" in their efforts to convert others, based on some kind of belief that they're already saved. That's what they do in the Novus Ordo.
I agree, Matthew, that Baptism of Desire does not affect any of us, it is not even visible, and we will not ever know who it applies to until the end of the world.
This heresy of denying Baptism of Desire does have dangerous effects, however, as all heresies have consequences, and for any who have stomached these threads will see, it has caused grave harm to those infected.
To sum up:
1. This heresy leads to a perverse idea about God's mercy, by erroneously holding that the State of Grace, the friendship with God, is not sufficient for salvation.
2. It leads to a false idea that God is bound to the externals.
3. It leads to the idea that the Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith to be taught in catechisms, dogmatic theology manuals, commentaries on the Code, and explanations from the Holy Office. To follow this position, one would never trust the Church again.
4. It exalts the role of individuals to be the judge of what Catholics must believe and destroys the necessity of submission and trust to the Popes and bishops.
5. It holds that private interpretation of Council docuмents supersedes the common understanding and interpretation of the Doctors and theologians.
6. It holds the arrogant belief that Catholics can hold dissenting opinions to the consensus of the theologians.
7. It holds that Catholics can privately evaluated the teaching of the Fathers against the common teaching of the theologians.
8. It holds a position contrary to the universal ordinary magisterium, which has consistently taught Baptism of Desire and Blood always and everywhere.
9. It holds a position directly opposed to the Council of Trent, which has explicitly taught Baptism of Desire, and the reason St. Alphonsus states it was de fide.
-
Subjectivism refers to the idea that the Catholic Faith can be had without actual objective possession of the Catholic Faith, i.e. that good intentions lead to the infusion of supernatural faith without someone actually having to hold in their intellect any of the propositions of said supernatural faith.
It's the idea that truth can be possessed and attained to by the will alone without any grasping of it by the intellect.
Ladislaus
The philosophical concept of subjectivism is far broader in scope than what you have indicated, but leave that aside because I wasn't asking you for a definition. I was asking you, in effect, to substantiate the following assertion which you had posted:
The subjectivism that makes you Catholic based on sincerity and "nitheness", the kind of subjectivism that LoT, Ambrose, SJB, and Sunbeam promote.
To repeat:
... please be so kind as to show which of my relatively few posts “promotes subjectivism”.
-
Subjectivism refers to the idea that the Catholic Faith can be had without actual objective possession of the Catholic Faith, i.e. that good intentions lead to the infusion of supernatural faith without someone actually having to hold in their intellect any of the propositions of said supernatural faith.
It's the idea that truth can be possessed and attained to by the will alone without any grasping of it by the intellect.
This is for Ladislaus,,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand your position is that you hold to Bod for Catechcuмens.
My follow up question is , if this correct, what pray tell happens to the soul that dies before he receives the water baptism he hoped for . For me its damnation, since he never enters the Church. Is that your belief also , or if not , What ?
Of course we do have the basic teaching in Trent, for the requirement for Baptism, while still alive , and that is where the word , "Desire" is properly used, as for an adult to give his "Ascent" to the act.
Is this what you mean when you hold to Bod for Catechumens ?
By presenting the three main points on the history of something called "Baptism of desire/blood," using the Dimonds explanations , (which I totally agree with), to prove and point that no one enters Heaven without being Sacramentally Baptised.
Ref, my last ,, "Invinciple Ignorance"
Also we have Canon 5 of the Council of Trent, which cannot be denied under pain of being Anathamaised.
Do respond Tks
-
The Opening posting speaks for itself. I've been debating with BODers for almost 20 years now, and on CI for some time, and after all of that, I've only known one BODer that restricted BOD & BOB to the catechumen and martyr. One person! It's all there, if there is anything wrong with my analysis point it out. But of course, you are also a BODer, so tell me, are you honest and sincere in talking about catechumens and martyrs and Trent and Alphonsus Ligouri & St. Thomas and such, when you believe and teach that [/u]that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
Read carefully what I wrote:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Notice how Ambrose and SJB and all BODers on CI run for cover when the light is shined upon their real belief. And notice how not one of them has said as is written above in red, not a one. Everything written above is true of practically all BODers ( I have only met ONE in my life that limited his BOD to the strict BOD written in red above!)
-
This heresy of denying Baptism of Desire does have dangerous effects
We are not discussing here baptism of desire or Blood of the catechumen, so I must assume that what you are defending is Heroin BOD, "salvation by no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ" (what is called salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because the person believes in a god that rewards). It's obvious that that is what you are doing in continuing to come onto these threads about salvation by implicit faith in Christ.
The Catholic that is open to the remote possibility of BOD for catechumens only - as fallible Church teaching - would not waste any time defending it. It's obvious that the BODers here are defending Heroin BOD.
-
I have studied and debated BOD for 20 years, I doubt there are many priests who have studied and debated this ONE subject like I have. One does not need to be a theologian to know one subject. The seminarians in the SSPX might cover this subject in 2 days.
Quote them then. You can't because they simply don't exist and you are dishonest for implying they do exist.
If you can provide no authority, then shut up. If you can't be quiet Matthew needs to silence you and he is derelict in his responsibility to police his own forum if he lets you continue.
Bowler, you cannot quote even one single source who has ever even noticed the "false teaching" that has been in all catechisms and taught by all the quoted theologians and manualists.
Matthew, I don't understand why you think the errors that bowler promotes simply don't matter or are just some kind of pointles argument. Since you do recognize none here are theologians, why not just require any commentary to actually quote an authority who EXPLAINS the subject, rather than allow bowler and company to do their own theology and pass it off as a valid theological opinion?
-
Bowler, you cannot quote even one single source who has ever even noticed the "false teaching" that has been in all catechisms and taught by all the quoted theologians and manualists.
We are not discussing here baptism of desire or Blood of the catechumen, so I must assume that what you are defending is Heroin BOD, "salvation by no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ" (what is called salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because the person believes in a god that rewards). It's obvious that that is what you are doing in continuing to come onto these threads about salvation by implicit faith in Christ.
The Catholic that is open to the remote possibility of BOD for catechumens only - as fallible Church teaching - would not waste any time defending it. It's obvious that the BODers here are defending Heroin BOD.
It's really quite simple, as I've always pointed out to all you BODers countless times:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
Just SAY that you limit your belief to the strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics.
It's always been that simple, yet none of you BODers "put your money where your mouth is".
-
The Opening posting speaks for itself. I've been debating with BODers for almost 20 years now, and on CI for some time, and after all of that, I've only known one BODer that restricted BOD & BOB to the catechumen and martyr. One person! It's all there, if there is anything wrong with my analysis point it out. But of course, you are also a BODer, so tell me, are you honest and sincere in talking about catechumens and martyrs and Trent and Alphonsus Ligouri & St. Thomas and such, when you believe and teach that [/u]that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
Read carefully what I wrote:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!
Notice how Ambrose and SJB and all BODers on CI run for cover when the light is shined upon their real belief. And notice how not one of them has said as is written above in red, not a one. Everything written above is true of practically all BODers ( I have only met ONE in my life that limited his BOD to the strict BOD written in red above!)
-
If you look at the quotes in support of BoD, from (allegedly) Trent, St. Augustine, the one Pope, Catechism of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, these all CLEARLY refer to catechumens.
Conveniently overlooked by Ambrose and co.
-
Since you do recognize none here are theologians, why not just require any commentary to actually quote an authority who EXPLAINS the subject, rather than allow bowler and company to do their own theology and pass it off as a valid theological opinion?
Because that would make for an incredibly boring forum. Despite the fact that we are not theologians, it's nice to be able to intellectually examine our faith. Let's be honest; nothing I or bowler or Stubborn have written are going to lead you into "error", or vice versa.
-
We see a lot of arguing over "Baptism of Desire" on this forum and a large number of members posting their personal opinions and snippets of various docuмents.
I was wondering if anyone has quotes from the theologians over the centuries, especially those after the Council of Trent until the 20th Century and what most of them say concerning this issue.
It just seems to me to be untoward to debate such a theological issue without heavily depending upon the opinions of the theologians.
-
If you look at the quotes in support of BoD, from (allegedly) Trent, St. Augustine, the one Pope, Catechism of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, these all CLEARLY refer to catechumens.
Conveniently overlooked by Ambrose and co.
Deliberately overlooked. I have said that I would not have an issue with BoD proper as presented in these "authorities". I don't buy it as being Church teaching, but that would be nothing more than a polite argument from my side. They dishonestly pretend that because some Church Doctor holds BoD for catechumens that this proves that pagans, heretics, infidels, and schismatics can be saved.
As others have pointed out, the REASON these folks are so adamant and dogmatic about BoD isn't that they're fighting for the possibility of catechumens who die before Baptism to be saved. How often has this happened? Very rarely. So what's the big deal? No, they're fighting for the possibility that any nice person who works in a soup kitchen can be saved as long as they don't explicitly reject the Church. It's because, as Father Cekada admitted, they find the opposite not to their tastes and unpalatable. It's clearly driven by emotion.
What they are fighting for is in fact the foundation for all of Vatican II, the false V2 ecclesiology, the Church of the nithe guy, rather than the Church of the faithful.
THAT is what I have an issue with and what I call heretical. It's a direct denial of the Church's dogmatic definitions of EENS.
BoD is a distraction. What's at issue is EENS. But the EENS deniers exploit BoD for catechumens and turn it into the V2 ecclesiology and follow Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner in their thinking.
-
We see a lot of arguing over "Baptism of Desire" on this forum and a large number of members posting their personal opinions and snippets of various docuмents.
I was wondering if anyone has quotes from the theologians over the centuries, especially those after the Council of Trent until the 20th Century and what most of them say concerning this issue.
It just seems to me to be untoward to debate such a theological issue without heavily depending upon the opinions of the theologians.
Those sources have been provided literally hundreds of times. They are dismissed as "not infallible" or obviously contradicting Trent "as written."
If you actually follow these threads you'll be outraged at the contempt Ladislaus, bowler and company have towards the theologians to which you refer.
-
Deliberately overlooked. I have said that I would not have an issue with BoD proper as presented in these "authorities". I don't buy it as being Church teaching, but that would be nothing more than a polite argument from my side. They dishonestly pretend that because some Church Doctor holds BoD for catechumens that this proves that pagans, heretics, infidels, and schismatics can be saved.
As others have pointed out, the REASON these folks are so adamant and dogmatic about BoD isn't that they're fighting for the possibility of catechumens who die before Baptism to be saved. How often has this happened? Very rarely. So what's the big deal? No, they're fighting for the possibility that any nice person who works in a soup kitchen can be saved as long as they don't explicitly reject the Church. It's because, as Father Cekada admitted, they find the opposite not to their tastes and unpalatable. It's clearly driven by emotion.
What they are fighting for is in fact the foundation for all of Vatican II, the false V2 ecclesiology, the Church of the nithe guy, rather than the Church of the faithful.
THAT is what I have an issue with and what I call heretical. It's a direct denial of the Church's dogmatic definitions of EENS.
BoD is a distraction. What's at issue is EENS. But the EENS deniers exploit BoD for catechumens and turn it into the V2 ecclesiology and follow Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner in their thinking.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
-
Readers reading these people who deny Baptism of Desire/ Blood, pray for youself you don't follow their path to destruction. The devil knows his time is short and the devil inspires people like this to take your soul.
Pray for truth, that you will know the truth when you hear it, and have the grace to follow the truth.
These people inspired by the evil one, twist and turn every quote we give them, they by their tone here prove they follow the devil, and in my opinion Matthew should bann this evil topic.
My only advice to you is to watch and pray for the grace to know the truth about this topic and others who want so much to lead you outside the church as they are. Misery love company.
-
I honestly see now what Our Lord meant when He asked whether there would be any faith left on earth when He returned. When so many even Traditional Catholics are deceived into rejecting the entire supernatural order and the dogma that there's No Salvation Outside the Church. I can only shake my head. And there's nothing anyone can tell you that will lead you to believe in EENS because you simply do not WANT to believe in it. You have made your choice. Carry on.
:cry:
-
I honestly see now what Our Lord meant when He asked whether there would be any faith left on earth when He returned. When so many even Traditional Catholics are deceived into rejecting the entire supernatural order and the dogma that there's No Salvation Outside the Church. I can only shake my head. And there's nothing anyone can tell you that will lead you to believe in EENS because you simply do not WANT to believe in it. You have made your choice. Carry on.
:cry:
Accepting the Church's teaching with regard to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood does not imply a rejection of the Church's teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church.
I believe the logic here is simple. The Church teaches truth. Truth is always agreeable with other truths. The Church could not possibly teach two truths that contradict each other. If two truths declared by the Church appear to oppose each other, it can only be that we simply misunderstand one or the other of these truths.
-
As others have pointed out, the REASON these folks are so adamant and dogmatic about BoD isn't that they're fighting for the possibility of catechumens who die before Baptism to be saved. How often has this happened? Very rarely. So what's the big deal?
The big deal is that you and others present false doctrines that are a result of you doing your own theology against the teaching of real authorized teachers in the Church. YOU REJECT the things you find disagreeable. You provide no authorized sources because there aren't any to cite.
-
I haven't been around much, but I am so happy there are still some people who defend the teachings of the truth, as John Anthony and SJB, thank God for them.
Believing in the teachings of the Church such as BOD, does not mean we reject No Salvation Outside the Church at all. BOD makes you a member of the Church through the power of God.
If anyone is outside the Church would be those who reject BOD, and spend their energy twisting the doctrines of the Church to fit into their false beliefs just as all the apostates have done throughout the history of the Church.
Pray to know the truth, be meek and pray, do not be proud and rely on ones own interpretations.
-
Are you BoD? :confused1:
-
How far back does Salvation by Water Baptism only go ?[/b]
Interesting facts from Peter Dimonds Manual...
The Fathers are unanimous from the beginning [/b
(43)
In the first millennium of the Church there lived hundreds of holy men and saints who are called, “Fathers of the Church”. Tixeront, in his Handbook of Patrology, lists over five hundred whose names and writings have come down to us. The Fathers ( or prominent early Christian Catholic writers), are unanimous from the beginning that no one enters heaven or is freed from original sin without water baptism.
In the letter of Barnaas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:
“We descend into the water full of sins and fullness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart”
In 140 A.D., the early church fathers Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3.5, and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”
He lists another 23 quotes of the early Fathers, from the period 70 A.D. to 870 A. D. who follow the same truths.
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, He cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
The Dimonds have done the research, its up to you to accept or reject the truths , not on their word by on the teaching and docuмentation of the Church.
-
In the Old Testament, God speaks through Ezechiel about the New Covenant required for salvation. We can see that in the Book of Ezechiel, God reveals the promise of baptism. God says, “And I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.” They will enter the New Covenant through Baptism, their priests will offer sacrifice, and they will be governed by one shepherd (34:23).
“I will pour upon you clean water” (Ezech. 36:25). “And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you” (Ezech. 36:26). “He hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature”
-
Accepting the Church's teaching with regard to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood does not imply a rejection of the Church's teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church.
I believe the logic here is simple. The Church teaches truth. Truth is always agreeable with other truths. The Church could not possibly teach two truths that contradict each other. If two truths declared by the Church appear to oppose each other, it can only be that we simply misunderstand one or the other of these truths.
Do you believe someone can be saved though "invincible ignorance"?
The Church does indeed teaches truth which cannot be contradicted. How do you then reconcile this infallible statements with BOD or BOB?. This is not about personal interpretation. It is very clear indeed. Our Lord Christ spoke so everyone could understand his commandment.
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.
D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church[/color]”
Again people do believe what they want to believe. They believe in BOD because they want to play God and save non-Catholics. It is part of the modernist sentimentalist "in the name of love everything goes" brain washing, which is very difficult to get rid of. Only trough God' grace one can see the Truth for what it is. The truth is unbearable for most, though.
-
Solid, timeless, eternal, true Catholic doctrine always says what it means and means what it says. There is no possibility of ambiguity, error, contradiction, subjectivism, relativism, etc.
Ignorance and hardheartedness are punishments from God due to sin. This punishment is the withholding of grace, which leads to both spiritual blindness in this life and eternal damnation in the next life. God will have mercy to whoever he has mercy. There is no other explanation for spiritual blindness.
John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
-
We all believe in the SACRAMENT of Baptism.
We also know that many are in Heaven who have never received this Sacrament.
We believe in an unchanging God, who can do all things.
We believe in a God who is not limited, and His mercy is greater than any evil or accident of nature.
BOD is not a Sacrament. We believe that all should be Baptised by water ASAP after birth. No delay! Baptism is necessary and a gift from God.
We believe in No Salvation Outside the Church, those outside the Church deny the doctrines taught by the Church.
Who here can honestly say who is saved, for God can save a person in an instant by His grace, sometime at a persons last moments of life, he can reveal the truth of Baptism of Desire or other truths needed for salvation.
-
We believe in an unchanging God, who can do all things
:facepalm:
-
We believe in an unchanging God, who can do all things
:facepalm:
Do you really think that for the one who this unchanging God, who can do all things, draws, will be impossible to receive Baptism (and the rest of the Sacraments) and thus fulfill His promise? Do you think that the worthy souls that Gods draws will be deprived of the means of Salvation?
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."
And for someone that dies ignorant of our Faith and without Baptism, StAugustine states, “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
-
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Book of Hebrews
Jesus Christ is God.
So you deny that God can do all things?
You believe that God in bound by His own Sacraments.
He doesn't change His mind when He allows BOD, if that is what you are twisting, He is not bound by His teaching,..... WE ARE!
-
We believe in an unchanging God, who can do all things
:facepalm:
Do you really think that for the one who this unchanging God, who can do all things, draws, will be impossible to receive Baptism (and the rest of the Sacraments) and thus fulfill His promise? Do you think that the worthy souls that Gods draws will be deprived of the means of Salvation?
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."
And for someone that dies ignorant of our Faith and without Baptism, StAugustine states, “… [i]God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief[/i].”
St. Augustine knew that by Baptism of Desire all was accomplished if certain conditions were met. he unlike you and your ilk never judged the souls of other people, nor limited God in His mercy.
Of course God knew which of us would save our souls, He knows everything, nothing new there.
-
You believe that God is bound by His own Sacraments.
Although I see the other side of this debate, I keep going back to this. It is Church teaching that God is not bound by His Sacraments, no?
-
That is correct!
The teachings of the Church are meant for us, not God.
If God wants to give His grace at the last moment of someone's life He can do that, because it is His Will that all men be saved, AND HE KNOWS WHEN A PERSON WILL MOST ACCEPT HIS GRACE.
The story in the Bible about the men that worked all day in the vineyard explains it best.
“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
These people here who deny God's mercy are like those who worked all their life being a Catholic, and resent those who accepted His grace at the last moment. grumble, grumble, :argue:
-
You believe that God is bound by His own Sacraments.
Although I see the other side of this debate, I keep going back to this. It is Church teaching that God is not bound by His Sacraments, no?
2Vermont,
You are correct, God is not bound by the Sacraments. The Church is bound to externals, but God is not.
-
For all of you who defend the so called Baptism of Desire:
Please sincerely tell us why is it important to you at all? Are you not baptized in water?
Or is it because you feel it is unmerciful of God that only baptized Catholics are saved? Are you a supporter of "invincible ignorance"? Do you believe in BOD so there is a way for members of false religions can also be saved?
In our case, those who argue against Baptism of Desire so vehemently is because we think that in modern times, BOD has opened the way for odious heresies, in particular indifferentianism, invincible ignorance, and universal salvation. What is the merit of striving to be a good Catholic if anyone can be saved in their false religion? This goes quite opposite to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
That is correct!
The teachings of the Church are meant for us, not God.
If God wants to give His grace at the last moment of someone's life He can do that, because it is His Will that all men be saved, AND HE KNOWS WHEN A PERSON WILL MOST ACCEPT HIS GRACE.
The story in the Bible about the men that worked all day in the vineyard explains it best.
“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
These people here who deny God's mercy are like those who worked all their life being a Catholic, and resent those who accepted His grace at the last moment. grumble, grumble, :argue:
So whatever for Christ Lord came to earth to expressly institute the New Law of Salvation?
Of course God can save whoever he wants but Jesus Christ came to teach exactly how God wants to be glorified and how is it that we humans can be saved and achieve life everlasting. He instituted His Church and sacraments for a purpose so we can work out our salvation.
If you undermine the need of the Sacraments for salvation, you clearly profess a protestantized water - down version of Catholicism.
-
Cantarella
If you had been following what has been going on here, you would surely have noticed that this issue has nearly always been initiated, not by those who have defended the Church’s teaching on Baptism of Desire, but by the likes of Stubborn and Bowler, who in their own different ways screw it up.
Is it not our duty to defend Catholic truth, and to do so, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the less-well instructed? Check out the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
Your idea of not defending a teaching of the Church because it has been abused is not a Catholic position. It is analogous to the liberal mentality which would sooner blame the crime on the victim than on the perpetrator.
Now watch out for the rejoinders from Bowler et al.
-
Cantarella we who defend this teaching of BOD are not guilty of undermining the need of the Sacraments for salvation. Nor do we profess a protestantized water - down version of Catholicism.
If you see it that way, it is no wonder you are confused about BOD. BOD is NOT a sacrament, Baptism of water IS a Sacrament, a much needed Sacrament in fact. Show one post here that denies any of the seven Sacraments from anyone who calls themselves a Catholic.
-
For all of you who defend the so called Baptism of Desire:
Please sincerely tell us why is it important to you at all? Are you not baptized in water?
Or is it because you feel it is unmerciful of God that only baptized Catholics are saved? Are you a supporter of "invincible ignorance"? Do you believe in BOD so there is a way for members of false religions can also be saved?
In our case, those who argue against Baptism of Desire so vehemently is because we think that in modern times, BOD has opened the way for odious heresies, in particular indifferentianism, invincible ignorance, and universal salvation. What is the merit of striving to be a good Catholic if anyone can be saved in their false religion? This goes quite opposite to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We defend it because it is logical, it is true, and it is the clear teaching of the Church. After seeing the contortions that Feeneyites must go through in order to wring their position out of Trent, it should be obvious to all and sundry that it is not, and cannot be, what the Church ever believed. But since you seem very concerned about this, please let me set your mind at ease.
Nobody here denies EENS.
Nobody here believes that water baptism is not absolutely necessary in the ordinary case.
Nobody here is a supporter of ecuмenism.
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
Nobody here believes that non-Catholics can be saved through their false religion.
Nobody here is recommending that anyone forego baptism.
And, lest it be forgotten,
Nobody here is responsible for the mash-up that liberals and heretics have made out of the clear teachings of the faith.
In no way, shape or form is the denial of Feeneyism anything except the simple recognition that God is not bound by His own sacraments. It is not an attempt to sneak pagans into heaven by the backdoor. It is not an attempt to excuse one's relatives or friends. It is certainly not a denial of the cross of Christ or an indifference in religious matters. It is not even an attempt to inflate the numbers of the just, for if even many of the baptized will be damned it goes without saying that the unbaptized will fare no better. The lack of sacramental baptism is never a point in one's favor. All of this has nothing to do with the question at hand. Feeneyism is wrong, not for any ulterior motive, but because it is not the truth. Feeneyism is wrong because it is wrong.
-
Nobody here believes that non-Catholics can be saved through their false religion.
Are they saved by our religion through invisible ties? Do you believe in invincible ignorance?
Feeneyism is a curious term indeed. I was taught since little that there is only ONE baptism. I am not from Protestant -rooted America, though.
-
TINSTA'F' & TINSTAA'F'. :fryingpan:
-
I don't think there a single BODer here that also doesn't believe in Invincible Ignorance. I wonder why :scratchchin:
As little, I was also taught in elementary catechism that only Catholics go to Heaven. Simple Catholic dogma that a 7 year old can grasp.
-
For all of you who defend the so called Baptism of Desire:
Please sincerely tell us why is it important to you at all? Are you not baptized in water?
Or is it because you feel it is unmerciful of God that only baptized Catholics are saved? Are you a supporter of "invincible ignorance"? Do you believe in BOD so there is a way for members of false religions can also be saved?
In our case, those who argue against Baptism of Desire so vehemently is because we think that in modern times, BOD has opened the way for odious heresies, in particular indifferentianism, invincible ignorance, and universal salvation. What is the merit of striving to be a good Catholic if anyone can be saved in their false religion? This goes quite opposite to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We defend it because it is logical, it is true, and it is the clear teaching of the Church. After seeing the contortions that Feeneyites must go through in order to wring their position out of Trent, it should be obvious to all and sundry that it is not, and cannot be, what the Church ever believed. But since you seem very concerned about this, please let me set your mind at ease.
Nobody here denies EENS.
Nobody here believes that water baptism is not absolutely necessary in the ordinary case.
Nobody here is a supporter of ecuмenism.
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
Nobody here believes that non-Catholics can be saved through their false religion.
Nobody here is recommending that anyone forego baptism.
And, lest it be forgotten,
Nobody here is responsible for the mash-up that liberals and heretics have made out of the clear teachings of the faith.
In no way, shape or form is the denial of Feeneyism anything except the simple recognition that God is not bound by His own sacraments. It is not an attempt to sneak pagans into heaven by the backdoor. It is not an attempt to excuse one's relatives or friends. It is certainly not a denial of the cross of Christ or an indifference in religious matters. It is not even an attempt to inflate the numbers of the just, for if even many of the baptized will be damned it goes without saying that the unbaptized will fare no better. The lack of sacramental baptism is never a point in one's favor. All of this has nothing to do with the question at hand. Feeneyism is wrong, not for any ulterior motive, but because it is not the truth. Feeneyism is wrong because it is wrong.
Great post! :applause:
-
Nobody here denies EENS.
Because you have made membership in the Church "invisible" so the point cannot be refuted since according to you there are members of false religions that are actually inside the Church through invisible ties. Typical modernist relativist tactic where there is no absolute truth. (Notice that I am generalizing here for the typical BODer. I don't really know you at all)
Nobody here believes that water baptism is not absolutely necessary in the ordinary case.
Because you clearly deny the infallible magisterium of the church. See for example the following canons:
Infallible Magisterium:
Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism, Canon 5:
If anyone says that Baptism of optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let it be anathema.
Nobody here is a supporter of ecuмenism.
Because you fail to see that if a person is not baptized then he is not really a member of the Catholic Church that Christ founded.
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
The same reason than above. Since you think any good willed person can be saved through the Church without actually belonging to it.
Nobody here believes that non-Catholics can be saved through their false religion.
Because you believe in invincible ignorance to conveniently excuse those who are ignorant of the Faith through "not fault on their own" and allow salvation for them within Our Church via invisible method.
Nobody here is recommending that anyone forego baptism.
Does it really matter if I am baptized or not if I can belong to the Church invisibly? What is the merit of being a good Catholic if any good hindu can be saved as well? Is there any need to proselytize at all? Remember the first and most important commandment: "I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me".
And, lest it be forgotten,
Nobody here is responsible for the mash-up that liberals and heretics have made out of the clear teachings of the faith.
I do agree with you on this.
-
For all of you who defend the so called Baptism of Desire:
Please sincerely tell us why is it important to you at all? Are you not baptized in water?
Or is it because you feel it is unmerciful of God that only baptized Catholics are saved? Are you a supporter of "invincible ignorance"? Do you believe in BOD so there is a way for members of false religions can also be saved?
In our case, those who argue against Baptism of Desire so vehemently is because we think that in modern times, BOD has opened the way for odious heresies, in particular indifferentianism, invincible ignorance, and universal salvation. What is the merit of striving to be a good Catholic if anyone can be saved in their false religion? This goes quite opposite to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We defend it because it is logical, it is true, and it is the clear teaching of the Church. After seeing the contortions that Feeneyites must go through in order to wring their position out of Trent, it should be obvious to all and sundry that it is not, and cannot be, what the Church ever believed. But since you seem very concerned about this, please let me set your mind at ease.
Nobody here denies EENS.
Nobody here believes that water baptism is not absolutely necessary in the ordinary case.
Nobody here is a supporter of ecuмenism.
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
Nobody here believes that non-Catholics can be saved through their false religion.
Nobody here is recommending that anyone forego baptism.
And, lest it be forgotten,
Nobody here is responsible for the mash-up that liberals and heretics have made out of the clear teachings of the faith.
In no way, shape or form is the denial of Feeneyism anything except the simple recognition that God is not bound by His own sacraments. It is not an attempt to sneak pagans into heaven by the backdoor. It is not an attempt to excuse one's relatives or friends. It is certainly not a denial of the cross of Christ or an indifference in religious matters. It is not even an attempt to inflate the numbers of the just, for if even many of the baptized will be damned it goes without saying that the unbaptized will fare no better. The lack of sacramental baptism is never a point in one's favor. All of this has nothing to do with the question at hand. Feeneyism is wrong, not for any ulterior motive, but because it is not the truth. Feeneyism is wrong because it is wrong.
Great post! :applause:
Agreed. I just don't see how anyone can argue with: "I'm God, I want YOU to do things this way (water baptism), but don't think I can't do things some other way. At the same time, don't presume that I will do it some other way. I am God and you are not. "
-
I don't think there a single BODer here that also doesn't believe in Invincible Ignorance. I wonder why :scratchchin:
As little, I was also taught in elementary catechism that only Catholics go to Heaven. Simple Catholic dogma that a 7 year old can grasp.
Yes, that is called No Salvation Outside the Church, a doctrine.
Everyone who is in the State of Grace. AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH, gains Heaven; do you deny this?
Another teaching taught in elementary Catholic school, prior to VII.
-
Every one of the BoDers here denies EENS; they pay lip service to it but take every opportunity to undermine and reject the dogma. Unless one of them states that he only believes in BoD for catechumens, unless they state that Protestants, Jews, infidels, schismatics, and all non-Catholics absolutely cannot be saved, then they are heretical deniers of the dogma EENS.
-
Every one of the BoDers here denies EENS; they pay lip service to it but take every opportunity to undermine and reject the dogma. Unless one of them states that he only believes in BoD for catechumens, unless they state that Protestants, Jews, infidels, schismatics, and all non-Catholics absolutely cannot be saved, then they are heretical deniers of the dogma EENS.
Your post is not true.
Sweeping Generalization Fallacy -
A sweeping generalization applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy.
-
We are not discussing here baptism of desire or Blood of the catechumen, so it is patently obvious that you BODers are defending what I call Heroin BOD, "salvation by no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ" (what is called salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because the person believes in a god that rewards). It's obvious that that is what you are doing in continuing to come onto these threads about salvation by implicit faith in Christ. ALL of you BODers are confirming what I wrote in the opening quote, the subject of this thread!
The Catholic that is open to the remote possibility of BOD for catechumens only - as fallible Church teaching - would not waste any time defending it. It's obvious that the BODers here are defending Heroin BOD.
It's really quite simple, as I've always pointed out to all you BODers countless times:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
Just SAY that you limit your belief to the strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics.
It's always been that simple, yet none of you BODers "put your money where your mouth is".
-
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
-
bowler, you sound so emotional, be careful Ladislaus will tell you to stop your posting.
-
Your post is not true.
I have yet to hear any of you state that Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and infidels cannot be saved if they do not first convert to the Catholic faith and join the Catholic Church before their death.
Do you believe that?
Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Sanborn, Bishop McKenna, etc. etc. have all explicitly said that members of false religions can be saved. That statement is heretical.
-
Yes, that is called No Salvation Outside the Church, a doctrine.
Everyone who is in the State of Grace. AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH, gains Heaven; do you deny this?
Another teaching taught in elementary Catholic school, prior to VII.
:read-paper:
-
bowler, you sound so emotional, be careful Ladislaus will tell you to stop your posting.
1Tim 2:9-15
Instructions to Women
In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works. Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
-
We are not discussing here baptism of desire or blood of the catechumen, so it is patently obvious that you BODers are defending what I call Heroin BOD, "salvation by no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ" (what is called salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because the person believes in a god that rewards). It's obvious that that is what you are doing in continuing to come onto these threads about salvation by implicit faith in Christ. ALL of you BODers are confirming what I wrote in the opening quote, the subject of this thread!
The Catholic that is open to the remote possibility of BOD for catechumens only - as fallible Church teaching - would not waste any time defending it. It's obvious that the BODers here are defending Heroin BOD.
It's really quite simple, as I've always pointed out to all you BODers countless times:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
Just SAY that you limit your belief to the strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics.
It's always been that simple, yet none of you BODers "put your money where your mouth is".
-
Dear BODers,
What has done the most damage to souls in the history of the Church is this one hair away from universal salvation belief, which is the common belief of even "traditionalist" sedevacantes persons like Fr. Cekada, CMRI, SSPius V, who are foaming liberals when it comes to BOD, for they TEACH that people are saved regularly every day by their false religion, and that although they don't know it, they are Catholics.
This belief has done the most damage to souls in the history of the Church because it is foundational to Vatican II's teachings on ecuмenism and religious freedom, which IS what Vatican II was all about. Vatican II has done the most damage to the Church of all heresies, and your one hair away from universal salvation belief is foundational to VatII. The reality is that people like you are the root cause of Vatican II, and you don't even know it or see it.
Bishop Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976):
“We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”
So,
1) "we think", replaces we know infallible.
2) People who are outside of the Church can be saved, so EENS does not mean what it says. (or the Abp. does not mean "outside of the Church" when he says "outside of the Church". Which is what the BODers here on CI say)
3) A Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, and anyone else who believes and has always professed himself to be a Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan etc. is really a Catholic "even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”
Folks, language no longer has any meaning!
-
So bowler its okay for a "man" to babble with silly emotion like a women, as you do! :sleep:
How do you spell A R R O G A N C E~
-
Your post is not true.
I have yet to hear any of you state that Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and infidels cannot be saved if they do not first convert to the Catholic faith and join the Catholic Church before their death.
Do you believe that?
So why the silence? Apart from a couple of anonymous down-thumbs for my verbatim statement of Church dogma. You don't like it, do you?
Is it too much to ask that you profess the defined dogma of the Church? All you had to say was, "Yes", because you'd only be repeating word for word something defined by the Church as dogma. And if you say, No, that these can be saved without joining the Catholic Church before their death, you are a heretic. That's why I say that you are heretics. You reject this dogma and use BoD as a smokescreen and cover for the rejection of EENS. Both bowler and I have repeated over and over again that we would have little quarrel with you if you excepted BoD for catechumens, but that's not your game, is it?
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..."
No, it's because what I said is true. You're not content with BoD for catechumens. You simply EXPLOIT this concept so as to reject the Church's dogma on EENS.
-
Ladislaus wrote:
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..."
All Catholics must believe this or be heretics. But, Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with this teaching.
-
All Catholics must believe this or be heretics. But, Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with this teaching.
Your version of BoD has everything to do with this.
Good. Are you in agreement, then, Ambrose, that when Bishop Fellay said that Muslims can be saved or when Bishop McKenna and Bishop Sanborn say that Jews can be saved that they are making heretical statements?
-
All Catholics must believe this or be heretics. But, Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with this teaching.
Your version of BoD has everything to do with this.
"My" version is the same as the Teaching of the Church "version."
-
All Catholics must believe this or be heretics. But, Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with this teaching.
Your version of BoD has everything to do with this.
"My" version is the same as the Teaching of the Church "version."
Good. Are you in agreement, then, Ambrose, that when Bishop Fellay said that Muslims can be saved or when Bishop McKenna and Bishop Sanborn say that Jews can be saved that they are making heretical statements?
-
All Catholics must believe this or be heretics. But, Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with this teaching.
Your version of BoD has everything to do with this.
"My" version is the same as the Teaching of the Church "version."
Good. Are you in agreement, then, Ambrose, that when Bishop Fellay said that Muslims can be saved or when Bishop McKenna and Bishop Sanborn say that Jews can be saved that they are making heretical statements?
I would like to read their statements before commenting. As I said and have said on this forum, no one can be saved outside the Church. Secondly, that dogma has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire.
-
Every one of the BoDers here denies EENS; they pay lip service to it but take every opportunity to undermine and reject the dogma. Unless one of them states that he only believes in BoD for catechumens, unless they state that Protestants, Jews, infidels, schismatics, and all non-Catholics absolutely cannot be saved, then they are heretical deniers of the dogma EENS.
Your post is not true.
Sweeping Generalization Fallacy -
A sweeping generalization applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy.
Your post is not true.
I have yet to hear any of you state that Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and infidels cannot be saved if they do not first convert to the Catholic faith and join the Catholic Church before their death.
Do you believe that?
So why the silence? Apart from a couple of anonymous down-thumbs for my verbatim statement of Church dogma. You don't like it, do you?
Is it too much to ask that you profess the defined dogma of the Church? All you had to say was, "Yes", because you'd only be repeating word for word something defined by the Church as dogma. And if you say, No, that these can be saved without joining the Catholic Church before their death, you are a heretic. That's why I say that you are heretics. You reject this dogma and use BoD as a smokescreen and cover for the rejection of EENS. Both bowler and I have repeated over and over again that we would have little quarrel with you if you excepted BoD for catechumens, but that's not your game, is it?
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..."
No, it's because what I said is true. You're not content with BoD for catechumens. You simply EXPLOIT this concept so as to reject the Church's dogma on EENS.
You ask, "so why the silence?" Well, I'll tell you, I was busy. But, since I have a moment before returning to my responsibilities, I think I'll take a second and thank God for that last breath I just took, and pray you well in all ways.
Your original statement is a broad and sweeping generalization, a rather obvious logical fallacy, but in case it might escape you, I am very sure that your statement "Every one of the BoDers here denies EENS" is false. Your vile representation of souls entrusted to your acquaintance is repulsive. You owe each and every one here who you insulted an apology. I might suggest you reflect on your actions with regard to the charity you extend to others, especially today, http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/Calendar/Friday_after_Ash_Wednesday.html
-
[Your vile representation of souls entrusted to your acquaintance is repulsive.
Answer the question.
-
Is this statement heretical?
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
Bishop Fellay just said that a Hindu (=pagan) can be saved.
Is that heretical?
-
[Your vile representation of souls entrusted to your acquaintance is repulsive.
Answer the question.
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
-
Hindu in Tibet ... [can] go to heaven.
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that ... pagans ... cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels ...
-
some image
Answer the question. Is Bishop Fellay's statement heretical? I'm not interested in BoD here.
-
some image
Answer the question. Is Bishop Fellay's statement heretical? I'm not interested in BoD here.
READ the Annotation.
-
some image
Answer the question. Is Bishop Fellay's statement heretical? I'm not interested in BoD here.
READ the Annotation.
I want YOUR answer, Yes or No? Too difficult to type?
-
some image
Answer the question. Is Bishop Fellay's statement heretical? I'm not interested in BoD here.
READ the Annotation.
I want YOUR answer, Yes or No? Too difficult to type?
As I am not aware of the context of this statement, and with the understanding that I do not personally have knowledge of the Bishop's intended meaning here, and with agreement that he is authorized and expected to disclose Church teaching, I would have no reason to disagree with his statement because he said that the soul died in a State of Grace, which I think we can agree means without sin.
Good souls see the Catholic in Catholic statements.
-
I would have no reason to disagree with his statement because he said that the soul died in a State of Grace, which I think we can agree means without sin.
Then I stand by what I said. I have yet to see a BoDer who does not heretically reject EENS.
-
Is this statement heretical?
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
Bishop Fellay just said that a Hindu (=pagan) can be saved.
Is that heretical?
I just finished reading Bp. Fellay's entire talk, "A Talk Heard Around the World," found HERE (http://www.angelusonline.org/uploads/articles_issue_pdf/233_2006_April.pdf)
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical. When Bp. Fellay used the term, "in the state of grace," that would imply that the man in question is implicitly desiring baptism, has supernatural charity, and at a minimum believes in the one true God who is a rewarder and a punisher. This view if understood this way is permissible as the Holy See has allowed it.
In my opinion, Bp. Fellay acted recklessly by incorporating an example such as this in a talk rather than a scholarly work on theology. A sermon or a talk is never the place for such fine and complex matters of theology. Bp. Fellay failed to qualify how this man achieved the State of Grace, and allows his listeners to remain ignorant of the process that is necessary.
Since the statement fails to make these distinctions, it is sloppy, but not heretical.
-
I would have no reason to disagree...
I guess that the mere fact that it word for word contradicts defined dogma doesn't give enough "reason" to reject it.
-
I would have no reason to disagree...
I guess that the mere fact that it word for word contradicts defined dogma is not "reason" enough to reject it.
As I said, you guys distort BoD and then exploit this distorted BoD into a rejection of EENS.
-
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical.
Then you too heretically reject the Church's defined dogma, despite your lip service to the contrary.
Yet another EENS-denier masquerading behind "BoD".
-
You guys need to be flushed out. This has nothing to do with BoD.
You distort and exploit it and hide behind it so that you can have an excuse to deny EENS.
-
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical.
Then you too heretically reject the Church's defined dogma, despite your lip service to the contrary.
Yet another EENS-denier masquerading behind "BoD".
Ladislaus,
Are you now stating that a man in the State of Grace when he dies goes to Hell?
-
I would have no reason to disagree with his statement because he said that the soul died in a State of Grace, which I think we can agree means without sin.
Then I stand by what I said. I have yet to see a BoDer who does not heretically reject EENS.
I do not reject the TRUTH that there is no salvation outside the Church.
I would ask you to reveal your authority interpreting Church teaching; In other words, can you produce one declarative statement that specifically condemns Baptism of Desire (i.e. Pope, Council, Saint says "Baptism of Desire is heretical because..."). The good people here have provided time and time again Church statement specifically teaching Baptism of Desire, you on the other hand wield some sort of self-appointed authority that allows you to supply conjecture.
-
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical.
Then you too heretically reject the Church's defined dogma, despite your lip service to the contrary.
Yet another EENS-denier masquerading behind "BoD".
Ladislaus,
Are you now stating that a man in the State of Grace when he dies goes to Hell?
I'm saying that only Catholics can be in a state of grace; that's defined dogma.
-
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical.
Then you too heretically reject the Church's defined dogma, despite your lip service to the contrary.
Yet another EENS-denier masquerading behind "BoD".
Ladislaus,
Are you now stating that a man in the State of Grace when he dies goes to Hell?
I'm saying that only Catholics can be in a state of grace; that's defined dogma.
Perfect contrition.
-
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical.
Then you too heretically reject the Church's defined dogma, despite your lip service to the contrary.
Yet another EENS-denier masquerading behind "BoD".
Ladislaus,
Are you now stating that a man in the State of Grace when he dies goes to Hell?
I'm saying that only Catholics can be in a state of grace; that's defined dogma.
Bp. Fellay in the text you gave in his hypothetical example stated the man was in the State of Grace. The implication of this would be that the conditions for implicit Baptism of Desire were fulfilled.
Are you saying the Church has defined that non-members cannot be in the Church. If so, show me where you have read this.
-
I would ask you to reveal your authority interpreting Church teaching; In other words, can you produce one declarative statement that specifically condemns Baptism of Desire (i.e. Pope, Council, Saint says "Baptism of Desire is heretical because..."). The good people here have provided time and time again Church statement specifically teaching Baptism of Desire, you on the other hand wield some sort of self-appointed authority that allows you to supply conjecture.
Now, please answer my request.
-
con·jec·ture
kənˈjekCHər/
noun: conjecture; plural noun: conjectures
1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
synonyms: speculation, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition
-
I would have no reason to disagree with his statement because he said that the soul died in a State of Grace, which I think we can agree means without sin.
Then I stand by what I said. I have yet to see a BoDer who does not heretically reject EENS.
Ladislaus your the one who mocks EENS, isn't it your "pope" who believe that all go to Heaven.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/05/pope-francis-all-go-to-heaven-even-atheists/
-
It has been made very clear that we are not discussing here baptism of desire or blood of the catechumen, therefore, without a doubt Ambrose and JohnAnthonyMarie are defending what I call Heroin BOD, "salvation by no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ" (what is called salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because the person believes in a god that rewards). Ambrose and JohnAnthonyMarie are both confirming what I wrote in the opening quote, the subject of this thread!
That the belief of Ambrose and JohnAnthonyMarie, just like ALL BODers, is foundational to Vatican II's teachings on ecuмenism and religious liberty, the only two subjects of Vatican II that Abp. Lefebvre and the traditionalists priests that went to SSPX seminaries object to.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century catechism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
-
I would have no reason to disagree with his statement because he said that the soul died in a State of Grace, which I think we can agree means without sin.
Then I stand by what I said. I have yet to see a BoDer who does not heretically reject EENS.
Ladislaus your the one who mocks EENS, isn't it your "pope" who believe that all go to Heaven.
I think that you have me confused with someone else. I think that it's very likely that the Holy See is vacant right now.
-
I repeat, in 20 years of debating the subject, I have only met ONE BODer who limited his belief in baptism of desire and blood to the catechumen. The responses of the BODers like Ambrose and JohnAnthonyMarie proves the point of this thread:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
All of you BODers have NOTHING to complain about Vatican II.
-
I would ask you to reveal your authority interpreting Church teaching; In other words, can you produce one declarative statement that specifically condemns Baptism of Desire (i.e. Pope, Council, Saint says "Baptism of Desire is heretical because..."). The good people here have provided time and time again Church statement specifically teaching Baptism of Desire, you on the other hand wield some sort of self-appointed authority that allows you to supply conjecture.
Now, please answer my request.
Are you avoiding answering this simple question?
I regrettably clicked the VIEW button and witnessed bowler's raging emotion. He displays very poor social skills, so I've elected to HIDE his posts again. I hope you will not disappoint me.
-
When the context of this quote is put into the meaning of the entire talk, I would not believe the statement is heretical.
Then you too heretically reject the Church's defined dogma, despite your lip service to the contrary.
Yet another EENS-denier masquerading behind "BoD".
Not enough thumb ups for you, Ladislaus.
This is EXACTLY what BOD is all about: the denial of the salutary dogma of EENS, which is to be taken literally, with ZERO loopholes.
-
There are no loopholes.
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed 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."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863.]
-
Let's look at it from this interesting angle.
I've been called a "Feeneyite heretic" many times here.
Let's say I accepted BoD but said that it's only for catechumens, those who have consciously embraced the Catholic Church and wanted to become Catholic, and not to pagans or heretics or Muslims or Hindus or Jews, etc.
Would you still think me a "Feeneyite heretic"?
-
For the bzillionth time, Quanto Conficiamur does not say what you claim it does.
His supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments
If you read this your "BoD" way, then you're putting heresy in the mouth of Pius IX. What's key is what is meant by "eternal punishments". Original Sin (non-deliberate sin) is enough to not be saved (cf. infants who die without having received Baptism). Not suffering eternal punishments doesn't mean that you're saved.
-
And I would think that this quote actually condemns you:
a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity
-
are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace
This simply means that God will bring such as these (those who have not put any obstacles to His grace in the way by deliberate sin) to salvation by "divine light" (=faith), i.e. that God will eventually bring these into the Church, not that they can be saved in their current state (without faith).
-
You are an idiot, Ladislaus. You do not deserve the courtesy of any more arguments. Discussion is only for men who are willing to live by reason, but lashes and burdens are for a fool. However, I will invite everyone else to look at how you twist texts out of recognition to promote you odious ideas, as you did in your last three posts.
1. To be deprived of the Beatific Vision is in fact a punishment for Original Sin. It is in fact the chief and characteristic effect of Original Sin and the reason we require a savior in the first place. It is the worst of all punishments suffered by the damned, worse by far than the pains of sense. Your inference that the non-saved do not suffer eternal punishment is ludicrous.
2. Infants who die without baptism do not struggle in invincible ignorance; they do not sincerely observe the natural law and its precepts; they do not live honest lives and are ready to obey God (all on account of their infancy), so they cannot possibly be the kind of people Pius IX was talking about here, unless Pius IX was a jabbering idiot. Any fool can see what is meant by this, but you're not just any fool, are you?
3. If Pius the IX had meant that those struggling in invincible ignorance etc. would be brought into the Church by sacramental baptism the way ordinary Christians are, and this is the only meaning he attached to the words "divine light," then this whole passage is redundant, and the following statement (beginning with "Because God knows...) is at the very least unnecessary if not entirely otiose. If he had meant sacramental baptism he would have said sacramental baptism. There is no reason for him to talk in such cryptic metaphors as you would have us believe.
You and bowler seem to have nothing to do all day except post and re-post the same garbage - sometimes literally the same garbage (as bowler does with his Crayola-inspired screeds, copied and pasted repeatedly into the thread) - that has been refuted countless times before. It prevails nothing with you that even your own quoted sources do not and cannot possibly mean what you say they mean. Such irremediable blockheadedness and persistence in the attack certainly are not the result of an innocent error on your part. You are deliberately obfuscating the truth to serve your agenda. You are clogging the forum with your effluent and outraging everybody with your provocations. I do not see why anyone should answer you ever again but to defend the faith from the mutilations you continually afflict upon her. For your part, sir, you are incorrigible, a fraud, and a viper, and you have shown this by your own words. Do not expect anyone to pay attention in the future.
-
And I would think that this quote actually condemns you:
a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity
You are seriously disturbed. To even insinuate this might apply to me goes well beyond acceptable behavior. I am finished entertaining you.
-
You are an idiot, Ladislaus.
You are a genius, you cracked the code! You've convinced me, I now believe like you Ambrose and JohnAnthonyMarie that:
ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), should not be read as they are written, that one has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written. You've convinced me that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). You've convinced me to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for your teaching that anyone who dies in a state of grace can be saved, or in simpler terms, anyone who goes to Purgatory or Heaven is saved. What genius!
-
You are an idiot, Ladislaus
By the way comrade BODer, pardon my ignorance, but who is that a picture of in your avatar?
-
You are an idiot, Ladislaus
If you really think Ladislaus is an idiot you are a very poor judge of intelligence.
-
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
I regrettably clicked the VIEW button and witnessed bowler's raging emotion. He displays very poor social skills, so I've elected to HIDE his posts again. I hope you will not disappoint me.
Yea, that's par for the course for BODers
(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608051843154118161&pid=1.7)
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us. These truths are that salvation is a grace. . .but that God does not refuse this grace to one who, on his own part, does all that he can . . .that faith is necessary in order to please God, but that negative unbelief, that is to say, an invincible ignorance of revealed truths, is not a sin. . . That no one enters heaven, unless his sins have been forgiven him, but that the desire of baptism joined to perfect contrition both one and the other including a sincere wish to obey Jesus Christ and to belong to His Church, obtain the remission of sins, and justify before God. These principles cannot be contradictory, because they are alike true. They have been admirably summed up in these words of Pius IX.: ‘You know,’ he said in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy, dated Aug. 10, 1863, ‘that they who are under an invincible ignorance in regard to our holy religion, but yet observe faithfully the law of nature and the principles that are engraven by the hand of God on the hearts of all men, and who habitually lead an honest life in obedience to God, may also by the divine light and grace attain to eternal life; for God does not inflict everlasting punishment on those, who are not willingly culpable.’ These principles ought to make us enter with promptitude into the external communion of the Catholic Church, and fill us with the liveliest solicitude for those, who are still alienated from her; they forbid us to pronounce a decision respecting the lot of such and such a person; a decision which God reserves for Himself.”
Catholic Doctrine As Defined by the Council Of Trent: Expounded in A Series of Conferences Delivered in Geneva (1869).
-
To judge from the recent personal insults, I do believe that I have struck the nerve.
...
the nerve of bad will and guilty conscience for denying Church dogma. I flushed you out of hiding behind your BoD smokescreen for denying EENS.
-
Let's look at it from this interesting angle.
I've been called a "Feeneyite heretic" many times here.
Let's say I accepted BoD but said that it's only for catechumens, those who have consciously embraced the Catholic Church and wanted to become Catholic, and not to pagans or heretics or Muslims or Hindus or Jews, etc.
Would you still think me a "Feeneyite heretic"?
No responses to this?
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us.
Your effort to quote someone from 1865 in favor of salvation in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards), is not echoed by any Father, Doctor, Saint, Council or dogma:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
-
"Our zeal for souls is puny because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy. We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.
We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded as well as God’s whole-truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy there is no holiness".
-
"Our zeal for souls is puny because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy. We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.
We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded as well as God’s whole-truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy there is no holiness".
I can only think of Spain (and its colonies0 as the last country where there was a hatred of heresy. All the other European countries had large populations of heretics like France and Germany, or were totally heretical like, England, and then you have the USA again totally heretical.
-
You are an idiot, Ladislaus. You do not deserve the courtesy of any more arguments. Discussion is only for men who are willing to live by reason, but lashes and burdens are for a fool. However, I will invite everyone else to look at how you twist texts out of recognition to promote you odious ideas, as you did in your last three posts.
1. To be deprived of the Beatific Vision is in fact a punishment for Original Sin. It is in fact the chief and characteristic effect of Original Sin and the reason we require a savior in the first place. It is the worst of all punishments suffered by the damned, worse by far than the pains of sense. Your inference that the non-saved do not suffer eternal punishment is ludicrous.
2. Infants who die without baptism do not struggle in invincible ignorance; they do not sincerely observe the natural law and its precepts; they do not live honest lives and are ready to obey God (all on account of their infancy), so they cannot possibly be the kind of people Pius IX was talking about here, unless Pius IX was a jabbering idiot. Any fool can see what is meant by this, but you're not just any fool, are you?
3. If Pius the IX had meant that those struggling in invincible ignorance etc. would be brought into the Church by sacramental baptism the way ordinary Christians are, and this is the only meaning he attached to the words "divine light," then this whole passage is redundant, and the following statement (beginning with "Because God knows...) is at the very least unnecessary if not entirely otiose. If he had meant sacramental baptism he would have said sacramental baptism. There is no reason for him to talk in such cryptic metaphors as you would have us believe.
You and bowler seem to have nothing to do all day except post and re-post the same garbage - sometimes literally the same garbage (as bowler does with his Crayola-inspired screeds, copied and pasted repeatedly into the thread) - that has been refuted countless times before. It prevails nothing with you that even your own quoted sources do not and cannot possibly mean what you say they mean. Such irremediable blockheadedness and persistence in the attack certainly are not the result of an innocent error on your part. You are deliberately obfuscating the truth to serve your agenda. You are clogging the forum with your effluent and outraging everybody with your provocations. I do not see why anyone should answer you ever again but to defend the faith from the mutilations you continually afflict upon her. For your part, sir, you are incorrigible, a fraud, and a viper, and you have shown this by your own words. Do not expect anyone to pay attention in the future.
Good post!
-
All nations have fallen into the trap of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic forces, and thus, of diabolical naturalism, which definitely opposes the kingship of Christ Lord. Spain is the only country I believe that has been faithful to authentic Catholicism by proclaming fidelity to Christ the king, at least in the general level, which of course it's not well seen by anti-Catholic masonic countries such the US.
-
You guys have always dodged this question also, one of many issues you refuse to face in your bad will.
If a Hindu in Tibet is saved, that means he's within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church.
[V2 Ecclesiology]Consequently, now the Church consists not only of actual real Catholics (the subsistent core) but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews in Palestine, pagans in the woods worshipping the Great Thumb, etc. And THAT is the essence of Vatican II ecclesiology. Elements of sanctification (belonging properly to the Church) can exist outside the Church as an instrumental cause of salvation (the same theology as articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre).
[Religious Liberty]+Fellay says that this Hindu in Tibet is saved by following the lights of his conscience. In that case, following the (erroneous Hindu) lights of one's conscience is salvific and pleases God. Since people have the right to save their souls and to please God, then simply follows that people have a RIGHT to follow their consciences, even if they're wrong.
[Ecuмenism]Since the Church now consists of not only actual real Catholics but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews, pagans, etc., then the Church is formally one but materially united. So it's perfectly possible to reconcile the fact that the Church is one with that fact that the Church is divided. You just make the appropriate distinction, formally one, materially divided. So now these Hindus in Tibet are really our separated brethren, brethren because they're formally Catholic and separated materially.
Your false doctrines ARE in fact Vatican II in a nutshell and all the Vatican II errors are just logical conclusions.
Go ahead, convince me that a Hindu in Tibet can be saved, and that's the moment that I renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as being essentially free from error.
-
You guys have always dodged this question also, one of many issues you refuse to face in your bad will.
If a Hindu in Tibet is saved, that means he's within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church.
[V2 Ecclesiology]Consequently, now the Church consists not only of actual real Catholics (the subsistent core) but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews in Palestine, pagans in the woods worshipping the Great Thumb, etc. And THAT is the essence of Vatican II ecclesiology. Elements of sanctification (belonging properly to the Church) can exist outside the Church as an instrumental cause of salvation (the same theology as articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre).
[Religious Liberty]+Fellay says that this Hindu in Tibet is saved by following the lights of his conscience. In that case, following the (erroneous Hindu) lights of one's conscience is salvific and pleases God. Since people have the right to save their souls and to please God, then simply follows that people have a RIGHT to follow their consciences, even if they're wrong.
[Ecuмenism]Since the Church now consists of not only actual real Catholics but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews, pagans, etc., then the Church is formally one but materially united. So it's perfectly possible to reconcile the fact that the Church is one with that fact that the Church is divided. You just make the appropriate distinction, formally one, materially divided. So now these Hindus in Tibet are really our separated brethren, brethren because they're formally Catholic and separated materially.
Your false doctrines ARE in fact Vatican II in a nutshell and all the Vatican II errors are just logical conclusions.
Go ahead, convince me that a Hindu in Tibet can be saved, and that's the moment that I renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as being essentially free from error.
Ladislaus, first let me preface this by saying that I believe that those on both sides of this debate are good-willed. They truly believe they are supporting Church Truth. I find both sides have good points so I do find the debate interesting; however, considering the length and onslaught of threads (and of course the personal jabs), I tend to avoid these threads or abandon them. Certainly starting off any thread calling others bad-willed is not going to bring about anything constructive.
I am not well-versed in Church doctrine/teaching on this matter, but the way I see it there *is* a difference between what VII teaches and what most of the so-called "BODers" are trying to say. I think that by saying a Hindu "can" be saved one is saying that if God wills it at the end of his life He has the last say. I don't believe anyone is saying that the Hindu can be saved any other way. Therefore, the requirement for all is to be Catholic first and foremost. And that we should do whatever we can to try to get others to be baptized a Catholic (and I'll admit that I need to work on that in my own life). We must live by EENS, but recognize that God is the one who is ultimately in control.
With VII, on the other hand, I see a teaching that goes beyond a last minute decision on the part of God to save a particular individual. I see it less of an exception and I see it leading others to believe that it is more likely to happen than not. It also sends the message that it is the Hindu that brings about his salvation, not God. It is part and parcel of VII's false ecuмenism.
Anyway, I hope that that gives you an idea of where I am coming from (and I do think where most of the others are coming from).
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us.
Your effort to quote someone from 1865 in favor of salvation in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards), is not echoed by any Father, Doctor, Saint, Council or dogma:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
Bowler,
The quote I posted does not mean a person can be saved in any religion. Fr. Francis Hunolt (1691-1746) wrote the following:
“But, you will say, how can that knowledge help those poor people to eternal happiness: they are not baptized, and do not belong to the true Church, and so cannot hope for salvation, even according to the express words of Our Lord: ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned!’ (words that are to be understood of those who have the use of reason). St. Thomas of Aquin and other theologians answer this question as follows: If one belonging to a savage nation, after having learned to know God, lives according to the natural law, and does and avoids what his reasoning and conscience tell him to do and avoid, the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire; just, so speaks the Angelic Doctor, as He sent Peter to Cornelius, Paul to the Macedonians, Philip to the eunuch of Queen Candace; so that those people were miraculously instructed in the faith, and baptized. In the same manner Father Joseph Anchieta of the Society of Jesus, missionary in Brazil, while on a journey of some hundreds of miles, was brought into a forest, where he found an old gray-haired heathen a hundred years old. He examined this man, and found that during his life he had never offended God by a grievous sin. When asked why he did not do this or that after the example of his fellows, he answered: Because I knew it was wrong. As soon as he was instructed in the Christian faith, and baptized, this innocent man gave up his now sanctified soul into the hands of his Maker. So careful is the good God of those who live according to reason, and do what they can not to be excluded from heaven.”
The next quote is from Volume 15 of The Complete Ascetical Works of St. Alphonsus de Liguori:
“Moreover, we must know that some articles are to be believed by necessity of means, without which we can not obtain salvation, others by necessity of precept. The necessity of means implies that if we do not believe certain articles of faith, we cannot be saved. The necessity by precept signifies that we must believe certain other articles; but if it happens that we are ignorant of them by an invincible ignorance, we are excused from sin and may be saved.
To know and believe the first two articles already laid down, namely, that there is a God, and that he is a just rewarder of virtue and punisher of vice, is certainly necessary as a means of salvation, according to the words of the Apostle, ‘For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.’ Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles — the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word — is necessary by necessity of precept, but not necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. At any rate it is certain, as Innocent XI declared, when condemning a contrary proposition, that he who is ignorant of the two mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, cannot receive absolution.”
St. Alphonsus didn't condemn the contrary position as heretical, and so neither do I.
A friend of mine explained this issue of explicit and implicit faith quite well, so I’m going to post that here too:
“Faith is necessary, and true faith, but the point of dispute here is what, exactly, comprises the basic dogmas? What are the truths of the Catholic Faith so essential that the lack of them renders one not Catholic? As far as I'm aware, this is not a defined question. It is also exceedingly important to note that this is a SEPARATE but related question, that would effect the real-world IMPACT of baptism of desire, yet has no bearing on whether it is true or false of itself.
The two most prominent positions are what I'd call the "Natural Dogma" position and the "Strict" position. The Natural Dogma position says that only knowledge of God and His justice is required, if excused otherwise by invincible ignorance, to hold to the fundamental form of the Catholic Faith. The Strict position (which I hold) says that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required, and upon the authority of God (which would then presuppose the Church for any certainty). This amounts to essentially card-carrying Catholics only being among the saved. Again, as far as I know, and once more St. Alphonsus agrees with this, both of these positions are allowed until the basic dogmas are defined.
The question of implicit versus explicit desire for the sacrament is muddied quite a bit by the Novus Ordo use of the terms to promote near-universal salvation. An explicit desire simply means one where the person is aware of the sacrament of baptism and is explicitly pursuing it, even giving proofs of this by word and deed. An implicit desire means that they possess the desire to do what pleases God, even unto death, and to follow all of His proscriptions for salvation, even if they have not explicitly said they intended to be baptized. An example of this would be the Roman soldier who instantly converted among the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. At no point did he say or do anything to indicate he wanted to be baptized, or even that he was aware that it was a requirement; however, he ran toward martyrdom with the Christians there, and thus his implicit desire counted toward baptism.
An implicit desire requires faith, and that faith moreover must be separate from corrupting false beliefs. For instance, even if one took the "Natural Dogmas" stance, a person could NOT believe in one God because of the Quran. That would make them a Muslim and in no way a Catholic. They would, essentially, have to repudiate any part they had in false religions to even have a shot in that regard. But those who hold to the Strict position like myself don't believe it would apply to someone in that circuмstance anyway; if the former Muslim wanted to know God, God would provide what was absolutely necessary for his or her salvation, including sending them a preacher/book/angel/etc…
Opponents of the doctrine make it out to seem much more complicated than it is, and they do that by taking the open elements of the theology (for instance, the related basic dogmas issue) and making it seem as though there was a sea of confusion on it. There isn't. There are just multiple allowed positions, much like there is between the Molinists and Thomists on the problem of grace and free will.”
-
But, you will say, how can that knowledge help those poor people to eternal happiness: they are not baptized, and do not belong to the true Church, and so cannot hope for salvation, even according to the express words of Our Lord: ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned!’ (words that are to be understood of those who have the use of reason). St. Thomas of Aquinas and other theologians answer this question as follows: If one belonging to a savage nation, after having learned to know God, lives according to the natural law, and does and avoids what his reasoning and conscience tell him to do and avoid, the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire; just, so speaks the Angelic Doctor,...
You see, THIS falls within the limits of acceptable Catholic opinion regarding Baptism of Desire.
the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire;
This kind of BoD involves being enlightened with the true Catholic faith. I would not waste my time arguing about this. This does not undermine EENS. This states that God will bring the faith to such people, by miracle if necessary. My issue is that God can just as easily bring Sacramental Baptism to such as these, and He WILL do so for His elect. But that would be a relatively friendly disagreement on my part. What I have issues with is saying that the good-willed nice "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved because he follows the lights of his erroneous conscience.
-
But, you will say, how can that knowledge help those poor people to eternal happiness: they are not baptized, and do not belong to the true Church, and so cannot hope for salvation, even according to the express words of Our Lord: ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned!’ (words that are to be understood of those who have the use of reason). St. Thomas of Aquinas and other theologians answer this question as follows: If one belonging to a savage nation, after having learned to know God, lives according to the natural law, and does and avoids what his reasoning and conscience tell him to do and avoid, the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire; just, so speaks the Angelic Doctor,...
You see, THIS falls within the limits of acceptable Catholic opinion regarding Baptism of Desire.
the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire;
This kind of BoD involves being enlightened with the true Catholic faith. I would not waste my time arguing about this. This does not undermine EENS. This states that God will bring the faith to such people, by miracle if necessary. My issue is that God can just as easily bring Sacramental Baptism to such as these, and He WILL do so for His elect. But that would be a relatively friendly disagreement on my part. What I have issues with is saying that the good-willed nice "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved because he follows the lights of his erroneous conscience.
Ladislaus, everyone here defending baptism of desire says they must have supernatural faith, which necessarily implies that such a person at least believes what is absolutely necessary to believe in order to make one possess the Catholic Faith (if you have supernatural faith, you have the Catholic faith. If you don't have supernatural faith, you don't have the Catholic faith).
“The ways by which grace reaches the soul of the infidel are known to God alone. St. Thomas is certain that the untutored savage, who follows the dictates of his conscience, receives from God, either by an internal revelation or an external messenger, the faith necessary to his salvation.”
A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben’s Dogmatik, Vol II. by Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1908).
Of course God can just as easily bring sacramental baptism. However, if this was the case, that is what the theologians, catechisms etc. would teach, but they don’t. So in order to say that God always brings sacramental baptism, you have to deny the teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium, which teaches baptism of desire (as I've hopefully demonstrated on the catechism list thread).
“The doctrines taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church are made manifest in: 1) the official or liturgical prayers of the Church; 2) the symbols or formularies or creeds, 3) the approved cathechisms and theological manuals, 4) the pastoral instructions of the bishops and certain papal docuмents.
The liturgical prayers are the petitions which the Church, the mystical body of Christ, makes to God for those things which we hope to possess through God’s merciful omnipotence. But the things which we hope to obtain are precisely those which have been made known to us through the doctrines which we accept by divine faith. Since the liturgical prayers are the official prayers of the universal Church, their doctrinal content is clearly the work of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The symbols, formularies or creeds, likewise, manifest what is taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. From her earliest days the Church has expressed her basic beliefs in such forms. They are many: for example, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Creed of Constantinople, the Creed of Toledo, the professions of faith of the Council of Trent, St. Pius X’s Oath against Modernism, etc.
Catechisms and other books of Christian doctrine which have been approved by the bishops of the Church for teaching the content of divine revelation to the faithful manifest, to the extent that they are unanimous, the doctrines taught infallibly by the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The doctrines taught universally in the pastoral instructions of bishops, in the diocesan, provincial and plenary councils and in certain allocutions and letters of the Roman Pontiff must likewise be considered as the fruit of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and, therefore, as infallibly true.”
Evidence for Our Faith by Fr. Joseph H. Cavanaugh, C.S.C. (Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1959).
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us.
Your effort to quote someone from 1865 in favor of salvation in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards), is not echoed by any Father, Doctor, Saint, Council or dogma:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” [/b](Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
Bowler,
....St. Alphonsus didn't condemn the contrary position as heretical, and so neither do I.
All BODers say the same thing, all that is, is a copout. I haven't called the theory "of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards" a heresy either(see*), I do say that it is a novelty and it lead right to Vatican II's ecclesiology on ecuмenism and religious liberty. I also condemn it the same words that St. Alphonsus Ligouri condemns it above. What do you think that St. Alphonsus is doing in teaching the laity the above quotes, praising salvation by implicit faith?
Read what I wrote about BODers teaching salvation by implicit faith:
For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century catechism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
For someone to teach salvation by implicit faith, one has to reject the universal ordinary magisterium and all the dogmas and councils! You said before that baptism of desire of the catechumen is part of the universal ordinary magisterium, I disagree, since it was not even an opinion of the Fathers, let alone a unanimous opinion of the Fathers, so, it is not universal. HOWEVER, that one must believe in Christ and the Holy Trinity to be saved, IS part of the universal ordinary. It is in the Athanasian Creed and here is it dogmatically declared, no?:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
One additional point, your entire explanation of "salvation by implicit faith" hinges on invincible ignorance, unless one is invincible ignorant they can't be saved by ""salvation by implicit faith" according to your own explanation. No? Well, you will not find that teaching mentioned any longer in any of the quotes of traditionalist BODers. One could say, you are behind the times. QUESTION: Do you also say that you do not condemn that "opinion" of salvation for the non-invincible ignorant by implicit faith" ?
-
You see, THIS falls within the limits of acceptable Catholic opinion regarding Baptism of Desire.
the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire;
This kind of BoD involves being enlightened with the true Catholic faith. I would not waste my time arguing about this. This does not undermine EENS. This states that God will bring the faith to such people, by miracle if necessary. My issue is that God can just as easily bring Sacramental Baptism to such as these, and He WILL do so for His elect. But that would be a relatively friendly disagreement on my part. What I have issues with is saying that the good-willed nice "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved because he follows the lights of his erroneous conscience.
Ladislaus, everyone here defending baptism of desire says they must have supernatural faith, which necessarily implies that such a person at least believes what is absolutely necessary to believe in order to make one possess the Catholic Faith (if you have supernatural faith, you have the Catholic faith. If you don't have supernatural faith, you don't have the Catholic faith).
You see, Ladislaus made it clear that he is not discussing BOD of the catechumen, that he is not going to waste his time doing it. This entire thread is about salvation by implicit faith and always has been, and is peppered throughout ad-nauseum with me saying so, so cease with the smoke screens. It is clear that you are here defending salvation by implicit faith. You have "boiled down" salvation to "anyone that has supernatural faith is saved". This is akin to Ambrose's "anyone who dies in a state of grace is saved". Both your deductions are the same as saying that anyone who ends up in Purgatory or Heaven is saved. Wow, you cracked the code there! Exactly what saint taught that?
You are confirming what I've said all along, that all the BODers really believe that anyone can be saved in any religion, even if they don't believe in Christ and the Trinity. You are no different than all the BODers I've ever met (except one) in 20 years of discussions. Are you not concealing your real belief behind a façade of the catechumen?
-
Ladislaus, first let me preface this by saying that I believe that those on both sides of this debate are good-willed. They truly believe they are supporting Church Truth. I find both sides have good points so I do find the debate interesting; however, considering the length and onslaught of threads (and of course the personal jabs), I tend to avoid these threads or abandon them. Certainly starting off any thread calling others bad-willed is not going to bring about anything constructive.
I am not well-versed in Church doctrine/teaching on this matter, but the way I see it there *is* a difference between what VII teaches and what most of the so-called "BODers" are trying to say. I think that by saying a Hindu "can" be saved one is saying that if God wills it at the end of his life He has the last say. I don't believe anyone is saying that the Hindu can be saved any other way. Therefore, the requirement for all is to be Catholic first and foremost. And that we should do whatever we can to try to get others to be baptized a Catholic (and I'll admit that I need to work on that in my own life). We must live by EENS, but recognize that God is the one who is ultimately in control.
With VII, on the other hand, I see a teaching that goes beyond a last minute decision on the part of God to save a particular individual. I see it less of an exception and I see it leading others to believe that it is more likely to happen than not. It also sends the message that it is the Hindu that brings about his salvation, not God. It is part and parcel of VII's false ecuмenism.
Anyway, I hope that that gives you an idea of where I am coming from (and I do think where most of the others are coming from).
Don't you see that this is yet another loophole to undermine the only true religion and allow the salvation of non Catholics?
Of course God can have mercy to whoever He wants but Christ came to earth to teach exactly how God wants to be glorified and how we can be saved and granted life eternal. It is our duty to just follow Him and do whatever He commands.
-
Ladislaus, first let me preface this by saying that I believe that those on both sides of this debate are good-willed. They truly believe they are supporting Church Truth. I find both sides have good points so I do find the debate interesting; however, considering the length and onslaught of threads (and of course the personal jabs), I tend to avoid these threads or abandon them. Certainly starting off any thread calling others bad-willed is not going to bring about anything constructive.
I am not well-versed in Church doctrine/teaching on this matter, but the way I see it there *is* a difference between what VII teaches and what most of the so-called "BODers" are trying to say. I think that by saying a Hindu "can" be saved one is saying that if God wills it at the end of his life He has the last say. I don't believe anyone is saying that the Hindu can be saved any other way. Therefore, the requirement for all is to be Catholic first and foremost. And that we should do whatever we can to try to get others to be baptized a Catholic (and I'll admit that I need to work on that in my own life). We must live by EENS, but recognize that God is the one who is ultimately in control.
With VII, on the other hand, I see a teaching that goes beyond a last minute decision on the part of God to save a particular individual. I see it less of an exception and I see it leading others to believe that it is more likely to happen than not. It also sends the message that it is the Hindu that brings about his salvation, not God. It is part and parcel of VII's false ecuмenism.
Anyway, I hope that that gives you an idea of where I am coming from (and I do think where most of the others are coming from).
Don't you see that this is yet another loophole to undermine the only true religion and allow the salvation of non Catholics?
Of course God can have mercy to whoever He wants but Christ came to earth to teach exactly how God wants to be glorified and how we can be saved and granted life eternal. It is our duty to just follow Him and do whatever He commands.
It only does that when anyone presumes that God will do this.
-
Ladislaus, everyone here defending baptism of desire says they must have supernatural faith, which necessarily implies that such a person at least believes what is absolutely necessary to believe in order to make one possess the Catholic Faith (if you have supernatural faith, you have the Catholic faith. If you don't have supernatural faith, you don't have the Catholic faith).
Not really, Michael93. They CLAIM that people need supernatural faith but that it can be a purely-infused, purely formal faith, void of the minimal supernatural material content of the faith.
When they claim that Hindus in Tibet can be saved, they're claiming that non-Catholics can be saved, i.e. that non-Catholics can have supernatural faith, even unknowingly and unconsciously.
It's Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner theology.
It's Vatican II theology.
It's Francis I theology.
Again, go ahead and convince me that pagans and heretics and infidels can have supernatural faith (i.e. be saved), and I will immediately renounce Traditional Catholicism. There's no "error" in Vatican II that doesn't derive from this.
-
These people, Michael93, turn faith into something PURELY FORMAL, i.e. ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. Both Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson have repeated spoken of how "subjectivity" is the core root of all the Vatican II errors.
Faith is in the good intentions, not in the fact that the intellect has grasped the objective truth about God.
-
Obviously they HAVE to say that supernatural faith is required for salvation. Duh? Without supernatural faith there can be no supernatural charity and no sanctifying grace.
What they do, however, is redefine supernatural faith as a purely infused phenomenon, such as the purely infused faith that exists in a baptized infant. Once one reaches the age of reason, however, faith cannot purely infused anymore.
So let's drop the semantics.
What they're saying is that the Hindu in Tibet can have supernatural faith. He cannot.
It's the same as the other tautology that these people use.
Of COURSE I believe that there's no salvation outside the Church. But the Hindu in Tibet can be saved because he's really in the Church. [They redefine being in the Church.]
Of COURSE I believe that supernatural faith is required for salvation. But the Hindu in Tibet can be saved because he can somehow possess supernatural faith. [They redefine faith in subjective terms.]
They'll pay lip service to the core "formula" but then redefine all the terms in the dogmatic propositions. That's how heresy always works.
-
Obviously they HAVE to say that supernatural faith is required for salvation. Duh? Without supernatural faith there can be no supernatural charity and no sanctifying grace.
What they do, however, is redefine supernatural faith as a purely infused phenomenon, such as the purely infused faith that exists in a baptized infant. Once one reaches the age of reason, however, faith cannot purely infused anymore.
So let's drop the semantics.
What they're saying is that the Hindu in Tibet can have supernatural faith. He cannot.
It's the same as the other tautology that these people use.
Of COURSE I believe that there's no salvation outside the Church. But the Hindu in Tibet can be saved because he's really in the Church. [They redefine being in the Church.]
Of COURSE I believe that supernatural faith is required for salvation. But the Hindu in Tibet can be saved because he can somehow possess supernatural faith. [They redefine faith in subjective terms.]
They'll pay lip service to the core "formula" but then redefine all the terms in the dogmatic propositions. That's how heresy always works.
And it is a devil's trap from distrating people from the only true salvific religion.
The same unclean spirit from Vatican II. I don't understand how most of these BODers also happen to hold the sedevacantist position, condemn the alledged heresies of the conciliar popes, and then adhere to the same heresies anyway.
-
Obviously they HAVE to say that supernatural faith is required for salvation. Duh? Without supernatural faith there can be no supernatural charity and no sanctifying grace.
What they do, however, is redefine supernatural faith as a purely infused phenomenon, such as the purely infused faith that exists in a baptized infant. Once one reaches the age of reason, however, faith cannot purely infused anymore.
So let's drop the semantics.
What they're saying is that the Hindu in Tibet can have supernatural faith. He cannot.
It's the same as the other tautology that these people use.
Of COURSE I believe that there's no salvation outside the Church. But the Hindu in Tibet can be saved because he's really in the Church. [They redefine being in the Church.]
Of COURSE I believe that supernatural faith is required for salvation. But the Hindu in Tibet can be saved because he can somehow possess supernatural faith. [They redefine faith in subjective terms.]
They'll pay lip service to the core "formula" but then redefine all the terms in the dogmatic propositions. That's how heresy always works.
And it is a devil's trap from distrating people from the only true salvific religion.
The same unclean spirit from Vatican II. I don't understand how most of these BODers also happen to hold the sedevacantist position, condemn the alledged heresies of the conciliar popes, and then adhere to the same heresies anyway.
::sigh::
-
2Vermont,
So far no one has attempted to address my description of how this extended BoD leads to Vatican II. I just get scoffed at, but no one can refute the logic.
Question #1:
Let's say the Hindu in Tibet can be saved. That would mean he's really within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church. This means that the Church consists not only of real actual practicing Catholics, those who explicitly accept and profess the faith, but also various ancillary members who do not. It consist of those who are both formally & materially Catholic as well as those who are only formally Catholic. So the Church has a body and a soul, but the two are not co-extensive, and the soul reaches outside of the boundaries of the body (to the Hindu in Tibet).
How then is the description of the Church of Christ "subsisting" in the Catholic Church not actually a very profound description of this reality? You have a subsistent core of real practicing Catholics and those hanging around the perimeter, joined to the soul of the Church only. I actually think that "subsistence" ecclesiology would be a very profound and deep way of expressing this. Explain why that isn't the case.
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us.
Your effort to quote someone from 1865 in favor of salvation in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards), is not echoed by any Father, Doctor, Saint, Council or dogma:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
Bowler,
The quote I posted does not mean a person can be saved in any religion. Fr. Francis Hunolt (1691-1746) wrote the following:
“But, you will say, how can that knowledge help those poor people to eternal happiness: they are not baptized, and do not belong to the true Church, and so cannot hope for salvation, even according to the express words of Our Lord: ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned!’ (words that are to be understood of those who have the use of reason). St. Thomas of Aquin and other theologians answer this question as follows: If one belonging to a savage nation, after having learned to know God, lives according to the natural law, and does and avoids what his reasoning and conscience tell him to do and avoid, the good God will infallibly help him, even by a miracle, if necessary, to the light of the true faith, and to baptism, if not of water, at least of desire; just, so speaks the Angelic Doctor, as He sent Peter to Cornelius, Paul to the Macedonians, Philip to the eunuch of Queen Candace; so that those people were miraculously instructed in the faith, and baptized. In the same manner Father Joseph Anchieta of the Society of Jesus, missionary in Brazil, while on a journey of some hundreds of miles, was brought into a forest, where he found an old gray-haired heathen a hundred years old. He examined this man, and found that during his life he had never offended God by a grievous sin. When asked why he did not do this or that after the example of his fellows, he answered: Because I knew it was wrong. As soon as he was instructed in the Christian faith, and baptized, this innocent man gave up his now sanctified soul into the hands of his Maker. So careful is the good God of those who live according to reason, and do what they can not to be excluded from heaven.”
The next quote is from Volume 15 of The Complete Ascetical Works of St. Alphonsus de Liguori:
“Moreover, we must know that some articles are to be believed by necessity of means, without which we can not obtain salvation, others by necessity of precept. The necessity of means implies that if we do not believe certain articles of faith, we cannot be saved. The necessity by precept signifies that we must believe certain other articles; but if it happens that we are ignorant of them by an invincible ignorance, we are excused from sin and may be saved.
To know and believe the first two articles already laid down, namely, that there is a God, and that he is a just rewarder of virtue and punisher of vice, is certainly necessary as a means of salvation, according to the words of the Apostle, ‘For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.’ Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles — the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word — is necessary by necessity of precept, but not necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. At any rate it is certain, as Innocent XI declared, when condemning a contrary proposition, that he who is ignorant of the two mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, cannot receive absolution.”
St. Alphonsus didn't condemn the contrary position as heretical, and so neither do I.
A friend of mine explained this issue of explicit and implicit faith quite well, so I’m going to post that here too:
“Faith is necessary, and true faith, but the point of dispute here is what, exactly, comprises the basic dogmas? What are the truths of the Catholic Faith so essential that the lack of them renders one not Catholic? As far as I'm aware, this is not a defined question. It is also exceedingly important to note that this is a SEPARATE but related question, that would effect the real-world IMPACT of baptism of desire, yet has no bearing on whether it is true or false of itself.
The two most prominent positions are what I'd call the "Natural Dogma" position and the "Strict" position. The Natural Dogma position says that only knowledge of God and His justice is required, if excused otherwise by invincible ignorance, to hold to the fundamental form of the Catholic Faith. The Strict position (which I hold) says that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required, and upon the authority of God (which would then presuppose the Church for any certainty). This amounts to essentially card-carrying Catholics only being among the saved. Again, as far as I know, and once more St. Alphonsus agrees with this, both of these positions are allowed until the basic dogmas are defined.
The question of implicit versus explicit desire for the sacrament is muddied quite a bit by the Novus Ordo use of the terms to promote near-universal salvation. An explicit desire simply means one where the person is aware of the sacrament of baptism and is explicitly pursuing it, even giving proofs of this by word and deed. An implicit desire means that they possess the desire to do what pleases God, even unto death, and to follow all of His proscriptions for salvation, even if they have not explicitly said they intended to be baptized. An example of this would be the Roman soldier who instantly converted among the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. At no point did he say or do anything to indicate he wanted to be baptized, or even that he was aware that it was a requirement; however, he ran toward martyrdom with the Christians there, and thus his implicit desire counted toward baptism.
An implicit desire requires faith, and that faith moreover must be separate from corrupting false beliefs. For instance, even if one took the "Natural Dogmas" stance, a person could NOT believe in one God because of the Quran. That would make them a Muslim and in no way a Catholic. They would, essentially, have to repudiate any part they had in false religions to even have a shot in that regard. But those who hold to the Strict position like myself don't believe it would apply to someone in that circuмstance anyway; if the former Muslim wanted to know God, God would provide what was absolutely necessary for his or her salvation, including sending them a preacher/book/angel/etc…
Opponents of the doctrine make it out to seem much more complicated than it is, and they do that by taking the open elements of the theology (for instance, the related basic dogmas issue) and making it seem as though there was a sea of confusion on it. There isn't. There are just multiple allowed positions, much like there is between the Molinists and Thomists on the problem of grace and free will.”
Great post! Those with an open mind not infected by heresy may actually learn from you.
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us.
Your effort to quote someone from 1865 in favor of salvation in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards), is not echoed by any Father, Doctor, Saint, Council or dogma:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” [/b](Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
Bowler,
....St. Alphonsus didn't condemn the contrary position as heretical, and so neither do I.
All BODers say the same thing, all that is, is a copout. I haven't called the theory "of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards" a heresy either(see*), I do say that it is a novelty and it lead right to Vatican II's ecclesiology on ecuмenism and religious liberty. I also condemn it the same words that St. Alphonsus Ligouri condemns it above. What do you think that St. Alphonsus is doing in teaching the laity the above quotes, praising salvation by implicit faith?
Read what I wrote about BODers teaching salvation by implicit faith:
For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century catechism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
For someone to teach salvation by implicit faith, one has to reject the universal ordinary magisterium and all the dogmas and councils! You said before that baptism of desire of the catechumen is part of the universal ordinary magisterium, I disagree, since it was not even an opinion of the Fathers, let alone a unanimous opinion of the Fathers, so, it is not universal. HOWEVER, that one must believe in Christ and the Holy Trinity to be saved, IS part of the universal ordinary. It is in the Athanasian Creed and here is it dogmatically declared, no?:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
One additional point, your entire explanation of "salvation by implicit faith" hinges on invincible ignorance, unless one is invincible ignorant they can't be saved by ""salvation by implicit faith" according to your own explanation. No? Well, you will not find that teaching mentioned any longer in any of the quotes of traditionalist BODers. One could say, you are behind the times. QUESTION: Do you also say that you do not condemn that "opinion" of salvation for the non-invincible ignorant by implicit faith" ?
-
You guys have always dodged this question also, one of many issues you refuse to face in your bad will.
If a Hindu in Tibet is saved, that means he's within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church.
[V2 Ecclesiology]Consequently, now the Church consists not only of actual real Catholics (the subsistent core) but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews in Palestine, pagans in the woods worshipping the Great Thumb, etc. And THAT is the essence of Vatican II ecclesiology. Elements of sanctification (belonging properly to the Church) can exist outside the Church as an instrumental cause of salvation (the same theology as articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre).
[Religious Liberty]+Fellay says that this Hindu in Tibet is saved by following the lights of his conscience. In that case, following the (erroneous Hindu) lights of one's conscience is salvific and pleases God. Since people have the right to save their souls and to please God, then simply follows that people have a RIGHT to follow their consciences, even if they're wrong.
[Ecuмenism]Since the Church now consists of not only actual real Catholics but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews, pagans, etc., then the Church is formally one but materially united. So it's perfectly possible to reconcile the fact that the Church is one with that fact that the Church is divided. You just make the appropriate distinction, formally one, materially divided. So now these Hindus in Tibet are really our separated brethren, brethren because they're formally Catholic and separated materially.
Your false doctrines ARE in fact Vatican II in a nutshell and all the Vatican II errors are just logical conclusions.
Go ahead, convince me that a Hindu in Tibet can be saved, and that's the moment that I renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as being essentially free from error.
-
So far no one has attempted to address my description of how this extended BoD leads to Vatican II. I just get scoffed at, but no one can refute the logic.
Question #1:
Let's say the Hindu in Tibet can be saved. That would mean he's really within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church. This means that the Church consists not only of real actual practicing Catholics, those who explicitly accept and profess the faith, but also various ancillary members who do not. It consist of those who are both formally & materially Catholic as well as those who are only formally Catholic. So the Church has a body and a soul, but the two are not co-extensive, and the soul reaches outside of the boundaries of the body (to the Hindu in Tibet).
How then is the description of the Church of Christ "subsisting" in the Catholic Church not actually a very profound description of this reality? You have a subsistent core of real practicing Catholics and those hanging around the perimeter, joined to the soul of the Church only. I actually think that "subsistence" ecclesiology would be a very profound and deep way of expressing this. Explain why that isn't the case.
[crickets chirping]
[crickets chirping]
[crickets chirping]
-
They cannot answer you Ladilaus since they believe in only half truth which is no truth at all. Their reponses are nothing but evasive posts.
To deny any point of the Catholic Faith is to deny it completely. The entire Divine Faith is destroyed by that infidelity. The heretic who confesses the Holy Trinity, but denies that only baptized Catholics can go to Heaven, does not have the True Faith in either of these points.
Heretics are always contradicting themselves, finding loopholes to make a mere methaphor of the only true religion; but a single contradiction is proof enough to show that they do not have the Spirit of God. Can't they see that is Satan who plants this ambiguity, contradiction, loophole, doubt, division, etc, in order to distract souls from the righteout path that Christ spoke of?
-
You guys have always dodged this question also, one of many issues you refuse to face in your bad will.
If a Hindu in Tibet is saved, that means he's within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church.
[V2 Ecclesiology]Consequently, now the Church consists not only of actual real Catholics (the subsistent core) but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews in Palestine, pagans in the woods worshipping the Great Thumb, etc. And THAT is the essence of Vatican II ecclesiology. Elements of sanctification (belonging properly to the Church) can exist outside the Church as an instrumental cause of salvation (the same theology as articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre).
[Religious Liberty]+Fellay says that this Hindu in Tibet is saved by following the lights of his conscience. In that case, following the (erroneous Hindu) lights of one's conscience is salvific and pleases God. Since people have the right to save their souls and to please God, then simply follows that people have a RIGHT to follow their consciences, even if they're wrong.
[Ecuмenism]Since the Church now consists of not only actual real Catholics but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews, pagans, etc., then the Church is formally one but materially united. So it's perfectly possible to reconcile the fact that the Church is one with that fact that the Church is divided. You just make the appropriate distinction, formally one, materially divided. So now these Hindus in Tibet are really our separated brethren, brethren because they're formally Catholic and separated materially.
Your false doctrines ARE in fact Vatican II in a nutshell and all the Vatican II errors are just logical conclusions.
Go ahead, convince me that a Hindu in Tibet can be saved, and that's the moment that I renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as being essentially free from error.
I am not aware of any objections to Vatican II doctrines from the Old SSPX (and all the sedevacantes priests that were taught at the SSPX seminaries), other than on the subjects of ecuмenism and religious liberty, therefore, for them, as believers in salvation by implicit faith, there can be nothing objectionable in Vatican II, and nothing to stop them from "interpreting it in light of tradition".
-
In addition to the ecuмenism and religious liberty, the one other thing they objected to was the notion that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church". So I started there.
-
So far no one has attempted to address my description of how this extended BoD leads to Vatican II. I just get scoffed at, but no one can refute the logic.
Question #1:
Let's say the Hindu in Tibet can be saved. That would mean he's really within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church. This means that the Church consists not only of real actual practicing Catholics, those who explicitly accept and profess the faith, but also various ancillary members who do not. It consist of those who are both formally & materially Catholic as well as those who are only formally Catholic. So the Church has a body and a soul, but the two are not co-extensive, and the soul reaches outside of the boundaries of the body (to the Hindu in Tibet).
How then is the description of the Church of Christ "subsisting" in the Catholic Church not actually a very profound description of this reality? You have a subsistent core of real practicing Catholics and those hanging around the perimeter, joined to the soul of the Church only. I actually think that "subsistence" ecclesiology would be a very profound and deep way of expressing this. Explain why that isn't the case.
[crickets chirping]
[crickets chirping]
[crickets chirping]
Oh just stop your crap. You posted that about 4 hours before this post. It is the weekend and most folks aren't waiting with bated breath for your posts. It's this kind of crap that keeps me from sticking with these "debates".
Personally, I don't see that saying a Hindu can be saved by God has to mean they were in the Church prior to God's decision to save him. I'm not sure what everyone else's focus has been, but I have been consistently saying that God makes a decision at the end of a person's life and may in fact choose to save him. God can save whomever He chooses. He wants us to spread His Catholic Faith, but we can not hold Him to the commands He gives us. Just as Christ taught that the Sabbath was for man not for God. At the same time, I believe that we can not presume that He will save others outside of the Catholic Faith and that is why we must live our lives under EENS.
-
Oh just stop your crap. You posted that about 4 hours before this post.
I've posted this challenge at least a dozen times over the past few months.
Personally, I don't see that saying a Hindu can be saved by God has to mean they were in the Church prior to God's decision to save him.
Of course it does. Cantate Domino clearly states that they cannot be saved unless they are joined to the Church BEFORE their death. Consequently, they have to be part of the Church before they die.
... pagans ... [cannot] become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’, unless BEFORE the end of life they are joined to the Church.
Why don't you just admit it? According to you, there's nothing wrong with the "subsistence" description of the Church.
-
Admit it. You believe that God can't choose to save those you don't want to be saved.
-
“Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (St. Augustine, Against Julian 5, 4)
Failure to cooperate with God' grace is the reason God allows souls to keep ignorant. Ignorance of the knowledge of God is a punishment given to each of us for original sin. Only through real Baptim, we remmit this Original Sin.
God is omnmipotent. He will ensure that His elect, Hi chosen souls WILL get baptized with water, just as Christ, Our Savior, instituted it. Also, He will enure that His elect come to the knowledge of the True faith and do not remain in state of ignorance.
The sacraments are the means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and it is the Catholic Church that ministers those sacraments, so salvation can only come through the Church.
To say otherwise is to show a poor understanding on the extent of Original Sin, the need of the Church and the Sacraments for redemption and grace, the dogma of Predestination and predilection, and ultimately of God's omnipotence.
-
Everyone and anyone can save their soul, they just have to repent, and become Catholic. What is so difficult for you to understand.
Most people here who argue against the sedevacantist position seem to accept A "pope" in this case Francis, who does not believe in NO Salvation Outside the Church, and is not afraid to tell the world. EVERYONE is going to Heaven. You say...but, hey! He's the pope. How foolish you are, you who deny the teachings of the Church.
Therefore it is YOU who deny also, the teaching No Salvation Outside the Church, since you can't even discern that the Chair of Peter is empty at this time, empty of a Catholic pope, that is. Since you can't figure that out, why should you be expected to see the truth of your other errors. No wonder no one wants to talk to you guys anymore. The chemicals in your brain must be off.
-
0
-
Oh just stop your crap. ...
Personally, I don't see ...I have been consistently saying ... I believe ..
Insults and personal opinions, are good for nothing.
-
“We do not judge any persons, we only state the truths, which are to judge both them and us.
Your effort to quote someone from 1865 in favor of salvation in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards), is not echoed by any Father, Doctor, Saint, Council or dogma:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” [/b](Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
Bowler,
....St. Alphonsus didn't condemn the contrary position as heretical, and so neither do I.
All BODers say the same thing, all that is, is a copout. I haven't called the theory "of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards" a heresy either(see*), I do say that it is a novelty and it lead right to Vatican II's ecclesiology on ecuмenism and religious liberty. I also condemn it the same words that St. Alphonsus Ligouri condemns it above. What do you think that St. Alphonsus is doing in teaching the laity the above quotes, praising salvation by implicit faith?
Read what I wrote about BODers teaching salvation by implicit faith:
For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century catechism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
For someone to teach salvation by implicit faith, one has to reject the universal ordinary magisterium and all the dogmas and councils! You said before that baptism of desire of the catechumen is part of the universal ordinary magisterium, I disagree, since it was not even an opinion of the Fathers, let alone a unanimous opinion of the Fathers, so, it is not universal. HOWEVER, that one must believe in Christ and the Holy Trinity to be saved, IS part of the universal ordinary. It is in the Athanasian Creed and here is it dogmatically declared, no?:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
One additional point, your entire explanation of "salvation by implicit faith" hinges on invincible ignorance, unless one is invincible ignorant they can't be saved by ""salvation by implicit faith" according to your own explanation. No? Well, you will not find that teaching mentioned any longer in any of the quotes of traditionalist BODers. One could say, you are behind the times. QUESTION: Do you also say that you do not condemn that "opinion" of salvation for the non-invincible ignorant by implicit faith" ?
-
When you have to recourse to personal remarks, you have already lost all argument.
-
You guys have always dodged this question also, one of many issues you refuse to face in your bad will.
If a Hindu in Tibet is saved, that means he's within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church.
[V2 Ecclesiology]Consequently, now the Church consists not only of actual real Catholics (the subsistent core) but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews in Palestine, pagans in the woods worshipping the Great Thumb, etc. And THAT is the essence of Vatican II ecclesiology. Elements of sanctification (belonging properly to the Church) can exist outside the Church as an instrumental cause of salvation (the same theology as articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre).
[Religious Liberty]+Fellay says that this Hindu in Tibet is saved by following the lights of his conscience. In that case, following the (erroneous Hindu) lights of one's conscience is salvific and pleases God. Since people have the right to save their souls and to please God, then simply follows that people have a RIGHT to follow their consciences, even if they're wrong.
[Ecuмenism]Since the Church now consists of not only actual real Catholics but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews, pagans, etc., then the Church is formally one but materially united. So it's perfectly possible to reconcile the fact that the Church is one with that fact that the Church is divided. You just make the appropriate distinction, formally one, materially divided. So now these Hindus in Tibet are really our separated brethren, brethren because they're formally Catholic and separated materially.
Your false doctrines ARE in fact Vatican II in a nutshell and all the Vatican II errors are just logical conclusions.
Go ahead, convince me that a Hindu in Tibet can be saved, and that's the moment that I renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as being essentially free from error.
-
Oh just stop your crap. ...
Personally, I don't see ...I have been consistently saying ... I believe ..
Insults and personal opinions, are good for nothing.
LOL. You're funny.
-
All BODers say the same thing, all that is, is a copout. I haven't called the theory "of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards" a heresy either(see*)
I have. It's heretical because it completely guts EENS and turns the Church's dogmatic definitions into a meaningless joke, an empty tautological formula. It guts the meaning of the Incarnation; it destroys the Catholic understanding of the supernatural life. It reduces the Church to a vague instrumental cause of salvation. It is the ultimate subjectivism and eliminates the need to actually believe in any supernatural truths in order to be saved. It makes a mockery out of Our Lord's teachings about the requirements for salvation.
So, yes, this is absolutely heretical. Not only that, but it's the synthesis of all the modern heresies.
-
Cantate Domino: pagans cannot be saved.
Bishop Fellay: Hindu in Tibet can be saved.
Word for word contradiction of Church teaching. So I guess if you make an academic distinction, it's OK now to verbatim contradict defined Church dogmas?
This turns the entire magisterium into a flaming joke.
In fact, the warped BoDers on the board are bold enough to claim that it's essentially heretical to take Cantate Domino at face value. In other words, if I repeat Cantate Domino verbatim, then I' a heretic. What heretical depravity ! It's indeed what Our Lord referred to when He asked whether there would be faith on earth, and spoke of how the depravity of the end times would have them call good evil and evil good.
These worthless bums call dogma heresy and heresy dogma.
-
Admit it. You believe that God can't choose to save those you don't want to be saved.
You need to keep clear of the likes of LoT, SJB, Ambrose, and all the others here who have obviously managed to convince you that God is not a judge, rather, He is but a kindly old grandpa.
Many years ago in a sermon, the priest said it was St. Peter himself who said that even saints who make it to heaven, make it by the skin of their teeth - THAT is what we all will face when we die - and for you, you had best hope that in your last hour, all the prayers you've prayed for the grace of a happy death and all the prayers you prayed for the grace of final perseverance were acceptable, and that God does not send you where you belong - where we all belong and will certainly spend our eternity if we are not in the state of sanctifying grace when we die.
Question to ask yourself: Will you have a priest in your last hour to give you the sacrament of Extreme Unction? Why would you since you've made it known that you believe that salvation is possible without any sacrament at all. When you believe and preach that contrition / a sincere desire suffices - what should you expect in your last hour? A priest? For what?
Do you know that the sacrament of Extreme Unction, if received with proper disposition completely eradicates all the sins of its recipient's whole life no matter how terrible, and that the sacrament takes away all the punishments due to them? That's right - no purgatory! Straight to heaven! Deo Gratias He left us with such a means for salvation! But that's not all - - if you end up back on your feet after having received that sacrament, no matter how old you are, you start with a clean slate - as if you've just been sacramentaly baptized! THIS is what God does, THIS is how God provides, THIS is how God chooses to save whomever He wants.
But those who say that there is salvation via a BOD, maintain, in effect, that this Sacrament might as well not have been instituted, for it is really of no great importance. Whatever effects flow from it, almighty God produces in the souls of non-Catholic "saints" anyhow. And He does this directly without the mediation of the Church, without the power of the priesthood, and without the Oil of the Sick, wherein is the power of the Holy Spirit.
-
Admit it. You believe that God can't choose to save those you don't want to be saved.
I want every single soul to be saved. God can choose to do anything He wants. None of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. What's at issue is our understanding, based on Divine Revelation and Church teaching, of what criteria God has established in order for us to be saved.
Quite to the contrary, your issue with our position is the opposite, that excludes from salvation people that YOU would want to be saved but who don't meet the requirements established by God for salvation.
-
And, as I've repeatedly said, one of the (several) heretical underlying premises of BoD is this human notion of what would be fair/just/merciful for God to do and what would not.
Let's get this straight. NO ONE at all DESERVES to be saved. Even if there was no Original Sin, God created human beings with certain NATURAL faculties, and human beings can be fulfilled and happy in their natural state without the beatific vision. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what we're missing.
It's is only by virtue of a very special grace and absolutely FREE gift of God that He has invited human beings to participate in the internal life of the Holy Trinity, to become in a way members of the Holy Trinity, by having the likeness of His Son imprinted on their souls (via the Baptismal CHARACTER). It is this character which gives us the SUPERNATURAL FACULTIES, the very ability to know God as He knows Himself within the life of the Holy Trinity. This is owed to absolutely NO ONE.
Unbaptized infants enjoy a perfect NATURAL HAPPINESS to the fullness of their natural capacity to be happy and to love. They can know and love God, and are known and loved by God, to the greatest extend possible in their natural state.
-
And, as I've repeatedly said, one of the (several) heretical underlying premises of BoD is this human notion of what would be fair/just/merciful for God to do and what would not.
Let's get this straight. NO ONE at all DESERVES to be saved. Even if there was no Original Sin, God created human beings with certain NATURAL faculties, and human beings can be fulfilled and happy in their natural state without the beatific vision. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what we're missing.
It's is only by virtue of a very special grace and absolutely FREE gift of God that He has invited human beings to participate in the internal life of the Holy Trinity, to become in a way members of the Holy Trinity, by having the likeness of His Son imprinted on their souls (via the Baptismal CHARACTER). It is this character which gives us the SUPERNATURAL FACULTIES, the very ability to know God as He knows Himself within the life of the Holy Trinity. This is owed to absolutely NO ONE.
Unbaptized infants enjoy a perfect NATURAL HAPPINESS to the fullness of their natural capacity to be happy and to love. They can know and love God, and are known and loved by God, to the greatest extend possible in their natural state.
God knows every response we would have given to his every grace
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
-
Admit it. You believe that God can't choose to save those you don't want to be saved.
I want every single soul to be saved. God can choose to do anything He wants. None of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. What's at issue is our understanding, based on Divine Revelation and Church teaching, of what criteria God has established in order for us to be saved.
Quite to the contrary, your issue with our position is the opposite, that excludes from salvation people that YOU would want to be saved but who don't meet the requirements established by God for salvation.
The way I see it is, you people are the ones who deny God can do whatever He wants. Again He, God is not bound by His own rules, we were all born with original sin, with the exception of Our Lady, yet another exception to God's rule was John the Baptist when he was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb, read Luke.
You deny God can do all things and He alone has the last word as to who is in the state of grace at the moment of death.
-
Admit it. You believe that God can't choose to save those you don't want to be saved.
I want every single soul to be saved. God can choose to do anything He wants. None of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. What's at issue is our understanding, based on Divine Revelation and Church teaching, of what criteria God has established in order for us to be saved.
Quite to the contrary, your issue with our position is the opposite, that excludes from salvation people that YOU would want to be saved but who don't meet the requirements established by God for salvation.
The way I see it is, you people are the ones who deny God can do whatever He wants. Again He, God is not bound by His own rules, we were all born with original sin, with the exception of Our Lady, yet another exception to God's rule was John the Baptist when he was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb, read Luke.
You deny God can do all things and He alone has the last word as to who is in the state of grace at the moment of death.
Let me ask you this, Myrna. Can an infant who dies without Baptism be saved?
-
Infants who die without Baptism are NOT condemned either.
I think you addressed the definition of Limbo already.
However, did you know that some early theologians "think" that it is possible after the end of time, God might allow those unbaptized infants some sort of test to gain heaven. This is only a theory that some theologians consider, it is not a doctrine.
Don't ask me where I read that, I was taught that in Catholic school back in the 50's.
-
Well, regardless of your answer, you're completely missing my point.
Unbaptized infants are not saved. (Which doesn't mean they are condemned to hell either.)
But the point is that this has nothing to do with what God CAN or CANNOT do. You keep bringing that up, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question under discussion here.
-
The quote below was my response to a tread on CI actually entitled "Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jun/jun3ftt.htm
No Salvation Outside the Church
"Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
The title says it all about how BOders think:"Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
The Heroin BODer is a determinist, he believes that God has no control over the events in our lives. Therefore, they see the clear dogmas on EENS and the sacrament of baptism, and they say it is uncharitable to "interpret" them as they are written, that people who believe thus are saying ""Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
That is the bottom line, the Heroin BODer is a determinist, being determinists believe that:
- someone is born by pure chance in a place far away.
Answer: No one is born by chance in a place other than EXACTLY where God's providence put them.
- they believe that they saved themselves by learning the faith, but that their neighbor did not have the same teachers/opportunity.
Answer - The Heroin BODer did practically NOTHING to get their "knowledge", it ALL came from God's Grace. Even their accepting God's Grace came from God. When they go to their final judgement, they will then know that all they did was maybe lean 1/10 of 1 degree toward God, and He did the rest. God provides the same to all persons. But the Heroin BODer does not believe that. They believe that there are people who by chance (determinist) may be lost.
- the Heroin BODer, as a determinist, believes that the Holy Ghost would make all the clear dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism, and NEVER ONCE teaching any form of baptism of desire infallibly, while at the same time EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree does not mean what they say. In other words, they believe that God from before he created the world, thought of this "system" of teaching infallible something which does not mean what it says. AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
see see http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29140&f=9&min=0&num=5 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29140&f=9&min=0&num=5)
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
-
AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
Isn't this exactly how YOUR pope sees it! Yet, he is your pope.
-
AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
Isn't this exactly how YOUR pope sees it! Yet, he is your pope.
That's the irony of this entire discussion. Sedevacantists tend to be the most diehard BoDers, and yet if there's ONE heresy I could accuse the V2 Papal Claimants of it's EENS-denial, but the ecclesiology and EENS-denial of the V2 Popes if practically identical in principle to the ecclesiology and EENS-denial of these very sedevacantists. So, if the V2 Popes are heretical non-popes, most of these folks are also heretical non-Catholics.
Ironic, isn't it?
-
AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
Isn't this exactly how YOUR pope sees it! Yet, he is your pope.
Let's turn it around here. Don't you hold the same heresy as your Non-Pope, consequently making you similarly non-Catholic?
-
That's the irony of this entire discussion. Sedevacantists tend to be the most diehard BoDers, and yet if there's ONE heresy I could accuse the V2 Papal Claimants of it's EENS-denial, but the ecclesiology and EENS-denial of the V2 Popes if practically identical in principle to the ecclesiology and EENS-denial of these very sedevacantists. So, if the V2 Popes are heretical non-popes, most of these folks are also heretical non-Catholics.
Let's turn it around here. Don't you hold the same heresy as your Non-Pope, consequently making you similarly non-Catholic?
The reason you notice Sedevacantist as being the most diehard BoDers might be because we have retained the traditional teachings of the Church, and BTW I recently read that you also believe, finally the Chair of Peter is empty. Reminder: Sedevacantist means the Chair of Peter is empty.
Welcome one sede to another Ladislaus.
To the above bolded, it only takes one heresy to admit the truth, what took you so long?
Explain to me how you could possible conclude that to believe in BOD is to reject EENS.
God is infinite; He has no bounds.
Why use the term above "Non-Pope" referring to myself, aren't you also someone who claims the Chair is empty at this time?
-
AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
Isn't this exactly how YOUR pope sees it! Yet, he is your pope.
Women should not teach men, call your husband in and let him discuss the subject and then direct you to what is right or wrong.
-
What exactly are the heresies you condemn in the conciliar Popes? It seems that BODers adhere to the same exact heresies. If someone like Ladislaus become Sedevacantist, then there is no inconsistency or contradiction, but I don't understand that sedes can possibly accept the so called Baptism of Desire and its implications, more exactly, salvation for members of false religions.
So what's exactly the heresy of the anti-popes that you are not already adhering to? If possible, provide exact quotes.
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic? Is he an anti-pope?
This is what I don't get. If this is truly such a huge departure from Traditional Catholic Teaching, then you are saying that he was a heretic. And as a sedevacantist, that means he wasn't really a pope. How far back do you all go?
-
What exactly are the heresies you condemn in the conciliar Popes? It seems that BODers adhere to the same exact heresies. If someone like Ladislaus become Sedevacantist, then there is no inconsistency or contradiction, but I don't understand that sedes can possibly accept the so called Baptism of Desire and its implications, more exactly, salvation for members of false religions.
So what's exactly the heresy of the anti-popes that you are not already adhering to? If possible, provide exact quotes.
You hear or in this case you read what you want to see and completely miss the fact that, BOD does not replace, Baptism of water, the Sacrament.
The difference between the ConciLIAR "popes" are, they believe ALL are saved, just because... or because they no longer believe in absolutes, or they never did believe in a God that founded ONE religion, or they want to believe that truth is found in a culture, the way everyone was brought up, just subjective.
A Catholic believes that God is not bound by even His own teachings, and one can save their soul through the power of the Holy Ghost, truth is objective. So what you are saying is, the dying person who WANTS to be Baptised, prepared to be Baptised but the Holy Ghost CAN NOT work in that persons soul since he is not Baptised by water yet. Makes me wonder how the person even thought of wanting to be Catholic, since the Holy Ghost has absolutely no power over any of us till we are water Baptised. Therefore what you are saying if arrangements are made to be Baptised by water on Sunday, but the person gets killed on Saturday, he goes to Hell. BOD applies upon death to a person who dies desiring to be Catholic, BOD is NOT a replacement for the Sacrament.
Do you even believe in actual grace?
You are trying to tell the world that to believe in BOD, means that everyone is saved, even people who die perfectly content to be in their false man-made religion. That makes you a liar just like the ConciLIAR Popes that you adhere too. People who refuse to believe in a desire to be Baptised and dies in that state deserve the ConciLIAR "popes" or whatever you call them.
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic?
I reject your interpretation of Pius IX's teaching.
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic?
I reject your interpretation of Pius IX's teaching.
He speaks of the invincible ignorance that you all keep accusing us of believing in. Is the idea of invincible ignorance Traditional Catholic teaching or not?
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic?
I reject your interpretation of Pius IX's teaching.
He speaks of the invincible ignorance that you all keep accusing us of believing in. Is the idea of invincible ignorance Traditional Catholic teaching or not?
He says that God will not punish them for sins against faith if they are in invincible ignorance and also says that God will bring them to salvation if they have not put up any obstacles by way of deliberate sin in their path. He does NOT say that they can be saved in their current state but explicitly states that they cannot be saved without the Catholic faith. It's simply a reiteration of what St. Thomas Aquinas taught that when people do not come to the faith it's because they have put obstacles in their way through other sins. In other words, their LACK of faith is a punishment for OTHER sins, even if they haven't deliberately committed a sin against the faith.
BoDers simply want to read into that teaching a confirmation of their own heretical position.
By the way, I also do not say that you are formally heretical and therefore not Catholic.
-
Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.
If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.
This is all that Pius IX is saying.
-
You hear or in this case you read what you want to see and completely miss the fact that, BOD does not replace, Baptism of water, the Sacrament.
BOD does not replace the sacrament, but it is a substitute?
post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29614&min=35&num=5)
Regarding Baptism, the act of martyrdom prior to Baptism, or the desire for the sacrament accompanied by supernatural Faith and charity is a substitute for the sacrament.
You BODers need to get together so you can try to keep your stories straight.
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic?
I reject your interpretation of Pius IX's teaching.
He speaks of the invincible ignorance that you all keep accusing us of believing in. Is the idea of invincible ignorance Traditional Catholic teaching or not?
No. It is not.
Invincible ignorance with all of its subjective roots and ramifications (ex:Baptism of Desire, ecunemism, universal salvation) is the MAJOR heresy of the conciliar Popes.
-
A Catholic believes that God is not bound by even His own teachings, and one can save their soul through the power of the Holy Ghost
Statement not different from one written by a "Catholic" Pentecostalist. A protestant could also write this.
-
A Catholic believes that God is not bound by even His own teachings, and one can save their soul through the power of the Holy Ghost
Statement not different from one written by a "Catholic" Pentecostalist. A protestant could also write this.
God the Father the Creator, God the Son the Redeemer, God the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier.
-
For any BODer to disprove the opening posting of this thread they would have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards.
No one is stopping any of you from posting them, yet, 45 pages later, not a one has posted one single dogma, Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century that teaches what BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards.
* If any BODers did not believe that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, all that they would need to say is that they do not believe in it, that they restrict their BOD &BOB to the catechumen. However, as can be seen from all the threads where this "offer" was made, not a one BODer took it. This is the two folds proof of what I said above, that BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards.
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic?
I reject your interpretation of Pius IX's teaching.
He speaks of the invincible ignorance that you all keep accusing us of believing in. Is the idea of invincible ignorance Traditional Catholic teaching or not?
No. It is not.
Invincible ignorance with all of its subjective roots and ramifications (ex:Baptism of Desire, ecunemism, universal salvation) is the MAJOR heresy of the conciliar Popes.
Invincible ignorance is referred to in many places, it is merely an inculpable ignorance. It has no benefits, yet it may excuse a breach of the law in certain instances.
-
Read:
-
I am completely confused. I know that in past conversations there have been people who have suggested that the slippery slope of Vatican II (on BOD/invincible ignorance, etc) began with such comments made by Pius IX as well as the BOD teachings in the catechisms starting with Pius X. They asserted that modernism began to infect the Church as early as the 1800's and that we can not use them. I am pretty sure that I am remembering this correctly because when I would post such things I would get shot down. SO I'm not sure why now I'm hearing people interpreting the same words and saying all is good with them.
I don't know. I'm completely lost at this point. And meanwhile people are taking the liberty of judging whether I am a heretic...material or not. I would argue that if this topic is so unclear to so many Catholics then no one should beheld responsible for taking one side or another.
Like I said in another thread, when a real pope takes office, he really needs to clarify this once and for all...in a way that debates like this can't even happen.
-
So do those who reject Pius IX's teachings consider him a heretic?
I reject your interpretation of Pius IX's teaching.
He speaks of the invincible ignorance that you all keep accusing us of believing in. Is the idea of invincible ignorance Traditional Catholic teaching or not?
No. It is not.
Invincible ignorance with all of its subjective roots and ramifications (ex:Baptism of Desire, ecunemism, universal salvation) is the MAJOR heresy of the conciliar Popes.
I have not mentioned invincible ignorance in my Heroin BOD threads, simple because it is rarely mentioned anymore by BODers. It is "old school", just like the theory of "the Soul of the Church", they have moved on. BODers TODAY ALL REALLY believe that salvation can be had by any non-invincible ignorant, non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards. You non-Heroin BODers really have to stay current on these "vehicles" of salvation. You are behind the times if you still talk about the invincible ignorant.
For any BODer to disprove the opening posting of this thread they would have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards.
No one is stopping any of you from posting them, yet, 45 pages later, not a one has posted one single dogma, Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century that teaches what BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards.
* If any BODers did not believe that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, all that they would need to say is that they do not believe in it, that they restrict their BOD &BOB to the catechumen. However, as can be seen from all the threads where this "offer" was made, not a one BODer took it. This is the two folds proof of what I said above, that BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards.
-
I am completely confused. I know that in past conversations there have been people who have suggested that the slippery slope of Vatican II (on BOD/invincible ignorance, etc) began with such comments made by Pius IX as well as the BOD teachings in the catechisms starting with Pius X. They asserted that modernism began to infect the Church as early as the 1800's and that we can not use them. I am pretty sure that I am remembering this correctly because when I would post such things I would get shot down. SO I'm not sure why now I'm hearing people interpreting the same words and saying all is good with them.
I don't know. I'm completely lost at this point. And meanwhile people are taking the liberty of judging whether I am a heretic...material or not. I would argue that if this topic is so unclear to so many Catholics then no one should beheld responsible for taking one side or another.
Like I said in another thread, when a real pope takes office, he really needs to clarify this once and for all...in a way that debates like this can't even happen.
You may be lost because you may have innocently adopted the view that doctrine not yet the subject of a DEFINITION is mere opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here is Cardinal Manning:
“In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.” (From, “The Vatican Council and its Definitions”).
Here is the same authority, Cardinal Manning:
"This spirit began in Germany. It says: 'I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.' This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied. The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. (From, "Four Great Evils of the Day".)
And here is Pope Pius IX, the great anti-liberal, adding to this defense of the ordinary magisterium.
“But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.” (From “Tuas libenter”).
Here is another famous dogmatic theologian, the Jesuit Palmieri. This also was published just after the Vatican Council (1877), and at Rome.
“What we have said about the infallibility of the Church’s magisterium in the verbal formulas of the profession of Faith must also be said to other signs, for example paintings and images, by which the Church, by her ordinary and universal magisterium communicates the teaching of the Faith; for the same reason applies to both.” (From, “Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cuм prolegomeno de Ecclesia.”)
Bowler and Ladislaus are pushing the idea that all manner of error can appear as flowing freely from the Church, poisioning the Faithful who don't have a copy of Denzinger or the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent in hand.
-
Notice how SJB does not address at all the subject of this thread. He never does. He does not have one single dogma, Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century that teaches what BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards. The reason is because he does not have any answers, so, he uses smokescreen. 45 pages and not a one BODer with the honesty and integrity to admit that what they really believe is not taught by Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century. Where are their postings of proof? NOTHING. There is none. It does not exist!
For any BODer to disprove the opening posting of this thread they would have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards.
No one is stopping any of you from posting them, yet, 45 pages later, not a one has posted one single dogma, Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century that teaches what BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards.
* If any BODers did not believe that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, all that they would need to say is that they do not believe in it, that they restrict their BOD &BOB to the catechumen. However, as can be seen from all the threads where this "offer" was made, not a one BODer took it. This is the two folds proof of what I said above, that BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards.
-
Notice how SJB does not address at all the subject of this thread. He never does. He does not have one single dogma, Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century that teaches what BODers ALL REALLY believe * that salvation can be had by non-baptized persons due to their "implicit" faith in Christ, "implicit" because they believe in a god that rewards. The reason is because he does not have any answers, so, he uses smokescreen. 45 pages and not a one BODer with the honesty and integrity to admit that what they really believe is not taught by Father, Doctor, Saint, Creed, Council, or any catechisms prior to the 20th century. Where are their postings of proof? NOTHING. There is none. It does not exist!
You're just a liar.
You're the troll who won't admit that he has already implicitly admitted that the SACRAMENT of BAPTISM isn't always required in fact in all cases. It doesn't matter if it is "restricted" to catechumens either.
-
:sleep:
U guys are wasting your time.
-
SJB,
Unfortunately the Feeneyites (for lack of a better term - as I've pointed out even Fr. Feeney did not deny BoD in all cases) have completely clogged this forum with their trash.
Theirs is a most pernicious and vile sort of self-referential ideology. They simply do not notice or care that the Councils and Fathers of the Church teach the opposite of what they themselves believe. They do not know when they have been refuted. They will copy, paste, and repeat the same dreck ad infinitum as if that proved something; and in the case of bowler, he will even dig out his crayolas and scribble it real big just in case anyone sensibly decided not to pay any more attention to him. I'm afraid the only "answer" these fools deserve is the Athanasian one: POW! - right in the kisser.
I don't know what motivates their persistent intrusions into the forum. While their screeds are heretical, I wouldn't call their attitude one of heresy. I wouldn't even call it religious. I would say they are the pedants of a niche literary genre (if you take my meaning) and they infest Traditional Catholic discussion boards because it is only here they are assured of a semi-interested audience. The rest of the world wouldn't care about this controversy, and their circle of real-life Trad friends has already learned to tune them out.
Notice their Dufflepud-like behavior on the forum: incessant repetitions, gratuitous compliments and agreements with one another, an inability to self-reflect, and a complete lack of identity outside their own consensus. Remember, the Dufflepuds were neither smart nor brave. They were confined to an island for their own protection, and it was someone's penance to watch over them.
It's true that the tare has to grow up with the wheat - that's one way of looking at things. But Cathinfo is going to succuмb to a 'Tragedy of the Commons' if these corrupting influences aren't somewhat curtailed.
-
I am completely confused. I know that in past conversations there have been people who have suggested that the slippery slope of Vatican II (on BOD/invincible ignorance, etc) began with such comments made by Pius IX as well as the BOD teachings in the catechisms starting with Pius X. They asserted that modernism began to infect the Church as early as the 1800's and that we can not use them. I am pretty sure that I am remembering this correctly because when I would post such things I would get shot down. SO I'm not sure why now I'm hearing people interpreting the same words and saying all is good with them.
I don't know. I'm completely lost at this point. And meanwhile people are taking the liberty of judging whether I am a heretic...material or not. I would argue that if this topic is so unclear to so many Catholics then no one should beheld responsible for taking one side or another.
Like I said in another thread, when a real pope takes office, he really needs to clarify this once and for all...in a way that debates like this can't even happen.
2Vermont,
Do not be confused by these people and their artificial controversy. No Catholic, ever, denied Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. It was always believed by the Faithful and taught by the bishops always and everywhere.
It was an innovation of the followers of Leonard Feeney, an excommunicated (by Pope Pius XII) Jesuit priest who started this controversy. For the decades, the sect was mostly isolated to Massachusetts, but had pockets here and there throughout America.
In the last 20 years or so due to the internet age they have been far more successful at spreading their heresy and have grown considerably. Then, to make matters worse the Dimond brothers, two biological brothers came into contact with the Feeneyites. They put their own twist to the Feeneyite teaching and became experts at using the mass media, internet, mailings, tracts, cheap books, movies, etc., to spread the heresy all through the world.
This is not a dispute between two legitimate but undefined positions. This is a dispute between orthodox Catholics verse heretics. When a Pope comes again, he will warn them and if they remain obstinate, they will be excommunicated as heretics.
I strongly advise you to avoid them and their sophistries. Only read approved writings on matters of theology to learn your Faith. If you notice, they can never provide such writings, just their own perverse twisting of primary sources taken to mean things not meant by the docuмents.
-
Yeah, I should have stuck with my original rule of staying out of these discussions.
-
They simply do not notice or care that the Councils and Fathers of the Church teach the opposite of what they themselves believe.
Your are completely dishonest.
1) We dispute that the Councils and Church Fathers teach BoD.
2) When various Catholic authorities do hold the opinion of BoD, they always do so (with the exception of the more recent modernists) for CATECHUMENS ONLY.
What we're calling you out on is the extension of BoD to non-Catholics in such a way as to undermine the dogmatic teaching of the Church on EENS.
What we're calling you out on is that if you believe in this extended BoD, then you have absolutely NO excuse to be Traditional Catholics, since all the Vatican II errors derive logically from your BoDer ecclesiology. You are schismatic for rejecting Vatican II, since you cannot have any honest doctrinal objections to it.
In other words, folks, you are either heretics (due to your extended BoD) or schismatics (for rejecting a Vatican II which teaches the same doctrine that you hold).
In the most recent discussions, we've actually conceded #1 for the sake of argument, since you guys always dishonestly hide behind #1 to hide from facing #2. You use BoD for catechumens as a cover for EENS-denial, the core heresy.
-
No Catholic, ever, denied Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood.
I'm sorry, Ambrose, but I now have to put you into the category of "shameless liar". You can find more Church Fathers who reject BoD than support it.
-
Ladislaus, everyone here defending baptism of desire says they must have supernatural faith, which necessarily implies that such a person at least believes what is absolutely necessary to believe in order to make one possess the Catholic Faith (if you have supernatural faith, you have the Catholic faith. If you don't have supernatural faith, you don't have the Catholic faith).
Not really, Michael93. They CLAIM that people need supernatural faith but that it can be a purely-infused, purely formal faith, void of the minimal supernatural material content of the faith.
When they claim that Hindus in Tibet can be saved, they're claiming that non-Catholics can be saved, i.e. that non-Catholics can have supernatural faith, even unknowingly and unconsciously.
It's Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner theology.
It's Vatican II theology.
It's Francis I theology.
Again, go ahead and convince me that pagans and heretics and infidels can have supernatural faith (i.e. be saved), and I will immediately renounce Traditional Catholicism. There's no "error" in Vatican II that doesn't derive from this.
Ladislaus,
I haven’t seen anyone here say that a person can have supernatural faith void of the minimal beliefs required. That doesn’t make any sense.
For a comparison of Catholic ecclesiology and Vatican II ecclesiology, see: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=68&catname=15
A Hindu in Tibet can’t be saved if he dies as a Hindu — no one here is saying that such a person goes to heaven.
“If a pagan does the best he can, if he manifests the proper disposition, God, by grace, will enlighten his mind and strengthen his will in such a way that he can fulfill the whole natural law.
If a pagan fulfills the whole natural law, God will give him the grace of faith. The faith of which we speak here is not a mere assent to God’s existence as author of the universe; it is not merely an arguing from effects to a First Cause of the world and an intellectual assent to this conclusion of reason.
In order to be saved and reach the Beatific Vision the pagan must make a supernatural act of faith: he must under the influence of actual grace assent to supernatural truths revealed by God and accept them not in the same way as self-evident truths but because of the authority of God Who reveals them.
Now what are the supernatural and revealed truths which a pagan must believe to be saved? They are the following: (1) There is a God Who made besides the world in which we now live, another world in which we shall live with Him after our death and where we shall see Him face to face; 2) God is a rewarder and punisher: He rewards the good with Heaven or the Vision of Himself; He punishes the evil with hell, which is absolute and eternal separation from the face of God and a place of sufferings; (3) There is one God in Three Divine Persons; 4) The Second Person became man and died for our sins. Theologians say that, absolutely speaking, it is sufficient to believe the first and second truths, because when we believe in God as He is in Himself, we believe implicitly in the Trinity and in the Incarnation and Redemption. However a man must always be instructed in all four truths if time permits. If a person were dying, however, we must instruct him at least in the first and second.
But how can a pagan, who is living, for example, in the heart of Africa or India, come to a knowledge of at least the first and second revealed truths? Theology teaches that if a pagan does the best he can, God will send him a Christian missionary or even an angel, or give him an internal illumination…
Once a pagan has made a supernatural act of faith, he can elicit an act of perfect contrition. Although he may not know the exact words of our act of contrition, he can have all the dispositions of soul which are necessary elements of true contrition.
An act of perfect contrition contains the desire of Baptism which is sufficient to procure sanctifying grace. By Baptism of desire we mean the desire to fulfill perfectly God’s will and to use whatever means He might have ordained for the salvation of men. A man who dies in sanctifying grace, although he may sojourn for a while in purgatory, will eventually reach heaven...”
Modern Questions in the Light of Christian Principles and the Teaching of the Papal Encyclicals (Nihil Obsta and Imprimatur, 1940).
This is consistent with the statements of Pope Pius IX., the 1949 letter from the Holy Office, and the many other sources that have been provided.
Also check out http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Membership-in-the-Church-by-Dom-Aelred-Graham-OSB-STL
-
Micheal93,
You are defending salvation by implicit faith in Christ, "implicit" in the Hindu's belief in a god that rewards. You are no different than the BOders described by this thread, you are an example of the problem described above by Ladislaus:
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
-
They simply do not notice or care that the Councils and Fathers of the Church teach the opposite of what they themselves believe.
Man of the West,
You are defending salvation by implicit faith in Christ, "implicit" in the Hindu's belief in a god that rewards. I couldn't have been any clearer in repeating this LIKE 1000 times! What you wrote above is a total obfuscation, a blatant lie. If you don't think so, then why don't you answer with the quotes that not one BODer has been able to post in like 50 pages now? READ below, (as if you hadn't seen it like 1000 times already?):
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century caterchism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
"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: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"
-
In order to be saved and reach the Beatific Vision the pagan must make a supernatural act of faith: he must under the influence of actual grace assent to supernatural truths revealed by God and accept them not in the same way as self-evident truths but because of the authority of God Who reveals them.
#1 and #2 are not supernatural truths, and they cannot be transformed into supernatural truths simply based on accepting them on the authority of God having revealed them.
You're a lot closer to an acceptable Catholic opinion on the subject.
-
A Hindu in Tibet can’t be saved if he dies as a Hindu — no one here is saying that such a person goes to heaven.
That's exactly what everyone's saying, Michael93. It's what Bishop Fellay said and it's what Archbishop Lefebvre taught.
Archbishop Lefebvre taught that they can be saved "IN THEIR RELIGION" (i.e. while being Hindus) by not "BY THEIR RELIGION".
For most on this board we are NOT talking about someone who has converted to Catholicism and therefore can be saved. So your characterization above regarding their opinions is just plain wrong.
Despite your assertion that #1 and #2 are sufficient materially to constitute a supernatural act of faith (something with which I disagree), I consider what you described to be within the range of acceptable Catholic opinion.
You are saying, essentially, that this Hindu in Tibet must convert before being saved.
-
For a comparison of Catholic ecclesiology and Vatican II ecclesiology, see: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=68&catname=15
Bishop Sanborn says that non-Catholics can be saved. He has nothing to stand on in his rejection of V2 ecclesiology. Fastiggi absolutely shredded him on this point after Sanborn said that non-Catholics can be saved. Fastiggi then demonstrated that V2 ecclesiology is perfectly Traditional based on that premise.
-
For a comparison of Catholic ecclesiology and Vatican II ecclesiology, see: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=68&catname=15
I'm actually happy that you posted this. It deserves a thread of its own.
Those who are validly baptized in non-Catholic sects are presumed by Church law to participate in and assent to the sins of heresy and/or schism of their respective sects. Privately, however, they may be not guilty of these sins, owing to invincible ignorance of the true Faith, in which case they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire, provided they fulfill other conditions. In these cases, their adherence to the Roman Catholic Church by desire is sufficient for salvation.
The children who are born into these [Protestant] Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.
Bishop Sanborn refers to the fact that members of non-Catholic sects are outside the Church ONLY on a presumption of Church Law. Vatican II can therefore be seen as doing nothing more than changing this "Presumption of Church Law". Since it's Church Law, the Church can change it. In principle, however, +Sanborn=Vatican II. Both say that Protestants can really secretly be Catholics based on "desire" so long as they are in good faith and invincibly ignorant. Vatican II simply assumes that if they are born into these "Communities" then they are invincibly ignorant, having been indoctrinated into them by their parents since birth.
NO SUBSTANTIAL OR PRINCIPLED DIFFERENCE, the only difference being a change in presumption by Vatican II for pastoral reasons. After all, it was just a Pastoral Council.
-
The belief on ONE baptism for the remission of sin stands of its own and go way far beyond a "fr. feeney". The term "feeneyism" is utterly absurd and is made by the modern enemies of the Faith. Water Baptism is the de fide Catholic dogma and has been such for centuries.
In his fight against the modernist liberal ideas of the time, Fr. Feeney, a very remarkable priest, thought rightly that the major reason on the attack on the EENS salutary dogma was the so called Batism of Desire, which was already being exploted and twisted by the modernists. He saw what the liberals were doing and where BOD was leading to: The salvation of non-Catholics. A perfidious heresy an attack on EENS. Proof of that? Not a single BODer here believe that BOD applies to cathecuмen ONLY. They extend the desire for baptism to any hindu in tibet. It irremediately falls into the heresy of invincible ignorance and the salvation of heretics, pagans, schismatics, jews,etc.
Throughout history there has been speculation and fallible Church teaching on BOD for catechumens ONLY. For everyone with eye to see and ears to hear, it is pretty obvious how the concept has been totally exploited in modern times.
Again, is there a single BODer here that limits the efficacy of Baptism for Cathechumens ONLY?
And furthermore, I see a very strange contradiction in those BODers that also are sedes. Why would they do that? If they are so orthodox, why would they adhere to the same unclean spirit of Vatican II?.
-
And furthermore, I see a very strange contradiction in those BODers that also are sedes. Why would they do that? If they are so orthodox, why would they adhere to the same unclean spirit of Vatican II?.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/05/pope-francis-all-go-to-heaven-even-atheists/
Your funny! :roll-laugh1:
-
Yeah, I should have stuck with my original rule of staying out of these discussions.
2Vermont,
I just posted Msgr. Joseph Pohle's 4 volume set on the Sacraments in the CathInfo Library Found HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Sacraments-A-Dogmatic-Treatise-Vol-1-4-1915)
You are wise to avoid these discussions until you have learned your Faith properly from approved sources. This is where these people went wrong, they have not learned from approved catechisms and works of theology, rather they have learned their theology from unapproved books and mostly from the uneducated.
-
Ladislaus, everyone here defending baptism of desire says they must have supernatural faith, which necessarily implies that such a person at least believes what is absolutely necessary to believe in order to make one possess the Catholic Faith (if you have supernatural faith, you have the Catholic faith. If you don't have supernatural faith, you don't have the Catholic faith).
Not really, Michael93. They CLAIM that people need supernatural faith but that it can be a purely-infused, purely formal faith, void of the minimal supernatural material content of the faith.
When they claim that Hindus in Tibet can be saved, they're claiming that non-Catholics can be saved, i.e. that non-Catholics can have supernatural faith, even unknowingly and unconsciously.
It's Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner theology.
It's Vatican II theology.
It's Francis I theology.
Again, go ahead and convince me that pagans and heretics and infidels can have supernatural faith (i.e. be saved), and I will immediately renounce Traditional Catholicism. There's no "error" in Vatican II that doesn't derive from this.
Ladislaus,
I haven’t seen anyone here say that a person can have supernatural faith void of the minimal beliefs required. That doesn’t make any sense.
For a comparison of Catholic ecclesiology and Vatican II ecclesiology, see: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=68&catname=15
A Hindu in Tibet can’t be saved if he dies as a Hindu — no one here is saying that such a person goes to heaven.
“If a pagan does the best he can, if he manifests the proper disposition, God, by grace, will enlighten his mind and strengthen his will in such a way that he can fulfill the whole natural law.
If a pagan fulfills the whole natural law, God will give him the grace of faith. The faith of which we speak here is not a mere assent to God’s existence as author of the universe; it is not merely an arguing from effects to a First Cause of the world and an intellectual assent to this conclusion of reason.
In order to be saved and reach the Beatific Vision the pagan must make a supernatural act of faith: he must under the influence of actual grace assent to supernatural truths revealed by God and accept them not in the same way as self-evident truths but because of the authority of God Who reveals them.
Now what are the supernatural and revealed truths which a pagan must believe to be saved? They are the following: (1) There is a God Who made besides the world in which we now live, another world in which we shall live with Him after our death and where we shall see Him face to face; 2) God is a rewarder and punisher: He rewards the good with Heaven or the Vision of Himself; He punishes the evil with hell, which is absolute and eternal separation from the face of God and a place of sufferings; (3) There is one God in Three Divine Persons; 4) The Second Person became man and died for our sins. Theologians say that, absolutely speaking, it is sufficient to believe the first and second truths, because when we believe in God as He is in Himself, we believe implicitly in the Trinity and in the Incarnation and Redemption. However a man must always be instructed in all four truths if time permits. If a person were dying, however, we must instruct him at least in the first and second.
But how can a pagan, who is living, for example, in the heart of Africa or India, come to a knowledge of at least the first and second revealed truths? Theology teaches that if a pagan does the best he can, God will send him a Christian missionary or even an angel, or give him an internal illumination…
Once a pagan has made a supernatural act of faith, he can elicit an act of perfect contrition. Although he may not know the exact words of our act of contrition, he can have all the dispositions of soul which are necessary elements of true contrition.
An act of perfect contrition contains the desire of Baptism which is sufficient to procure sanctifying grace. By Baptism of desire we mean the desire to fulfill perfectly God’s will and to use whatever means He might have ordained for the salvation of men. A man who dies in sanctifying grace, although he may sojourn for a while in purgatory, will eventually reach heaven...”
Modern Questions in the Light of Christian Principles and the Teaching of the Papal Encyclicals (Nihil Obsta and Imprimatur, 1940).
This is consistent with the statements of Pope Pius IX., the 1949 letter from the Holy Office, and the many other sources that have been provided.
Also check out http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Membership-in-the-Church-by-Dom-Aelred-Graham-OSB-STL
Good post!
-
Good post!
Except that it doesn't apply to you. He's talking about (or appears to be talking about) a requirement for actual conversion to Catholicism. I say "appears to be" because the tendency of BoDers is to pay lip service and then two sentences later contradict the whole thing. So that remains to be seen.
-
Good post!
Except that it doesn't apply to you. He's talking about (or appears to be talking about) a requirement for actual conversion to Catholicism. I say "appears to be" because the tendency of BoDers is to pay lip service and then two sentences later contradict the whole thing. So that remains to be seen.
Can you name any Catholic in the last 1,000 years who denied Baptism of Desire other than Feeneyites, Dimondites, or Ibranyites?
-
Good post!
Except that it doesn't apply to you. He's talking about (or appears to be talking about) a requirement for actual conversion to Catholicism. I say "appears to be" because the tendency of BoDers is to pay lip service and then two sentences later contradict the whole thing. So that remains to be seen.
Can you name any Catholic in the last 1,000 years who denied Baptism of Desire other than Feeneyites, Dimondites, or Ibranyites?
Sure. I deny it.
-
Good post!
Except that it doesn't apply to you. He's talking about (or appears to be talking about) a requirement for actual conversion to Catholicism. I say "appears to be" because the tendency of BoDers is to pay lip service and then two sentences later contradict the whole thing. So that remains to be seen.
Can you name any Catholic in the last 1,000 years who denied Baptism of Desire other than Feeneyites, Dimondites, or Ibranyites?
Secondly, after my tongue-in-cheek response, you're obviously changing the subject again. We're not talking about BoD for catechumens but about your heretical denial of EENS.
-
At the end of the day, your ecclesiology = Vatican II ecclesiology.
None of you have even attempted a response to this. You ignore this inconvenient truth.
Either there's nothing heretical about Vatican II (and you're schismatic for rejecting it) or you're a heretic because you hold the same heresies as Vatican II.
-
And I am not saying this just to stick it to you. It's in the interests of truth.
If you could convince me that this Hindu in Tibet can be saved without first converting to Catholicism, then I would have no choice but to renounce Traditional Catholicism, abjure my schism, and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.
-
Good post!
Except that it doesn't apply to you. He's talking about (or appears to be talking about) a requirement for actual conversion to Catholicism. I say "appears to be" because the tendency of BoDers is to pay lip service and then two sentences later contradict the whole thing. So that remains to be seen.
Can you name any Catholic in the last 1,000 years who denied Baptism of Desire other than Feeneyites, Dimondites, or Ibranyites?
Secondly, after my tongue-in-cheek response, you're obviously changing the subject again. We're not talking about BoD for catechumens but about your heretical denial of EENS.
Do you think it is for you to define the extension of Baptism of Desire?
-
I do not believe in BoD for catechumens only. I believe that BoD for catechumens occurs, of course, but it is certainly not the only extension of the concept and is one of the least likely to be required in preactice. I also believe in BoD for certain people who are inculpably ignorant about the Catholic Church but who follow the natural law and the graces God gave to them. These can be saved, no matter where in the world they are, or when they lived, or whatever religious or cultural beliefs are practiced in their vicinity. The grace of perfect contrition and acceptance of Jesus which God mysteriously affords them is sufficient to make them a Catholic at the hour of their death, for all intents and purposes. I have no idea how often this occurs, but the possibility of it is undeniable. The Church teaches this. St. Paul taught this. Trent taught this. Even Fr. Leonard Feeney believed this, which you've apparently chosen to ignore.
Answer this, then, Ambrose. You have all dodged this question repeatedly, so I'll try again.
Let's say I changed my mind and accepted that there is BoD, but I say that this BoD applies only to catechumens, only those who have consciously accepted the Catholic Church based on the motives of credibility.
Would you still consider me a "Feeneyite heretic"?
I would simply call you "wrong," which is what you've consistently been on this topic. Baptism of Desire applies perhaps least of all to consciously professing catechumens who, being in near proximity to the Church and thoroughly instructed by Her, are in an ideal position to request and receive an expedited baptism if they should suddenly fall into any danger; and who, if they have deferred their baptism, are most likely to have done so from sinful and impure motives. I see no reason why God would be more likely to grant a special dispensation of grace to precisely that person who, having every reasonable opportunity of getting baptized and knowing full well of its necessity, would slothfully defer it in favor of earthly enjoyments—just because he signaled his so-called desire for baptism by "consciously accepting the Catholic Church"—than He would be to grant it to a virtuous pagan who was living by the lights of the natural law and who had never heard of baptism through no fault of his own. In this case the catechumen's desire for baptism is no real desire at all. However, if said catechumen was persevering in good faith and desiring to do all that was required of him for salvation, including submitting to sacramental baptism, and yet the fruition of his desire still somehow managed to elude him, then of course baptism of desire would provide him with the grace of the sacrament, but not the sacrament of grace. I will not wager much that the preceding scenario has a high likelihood of occurring, but it is still a permanent possibility and an inevitability of thought, and therefore must be mooted in order to round out the "technicalities" surrounding questions of sacramental baptism. The Church has done this for us: She has consistently taught that in the case of adult catechumens, the good-faith desire for baptism suffices for sanctifying grace. The upshot here is that, "To whom much is given, much shall be required." An unbaptized virtuous pagan will fare better with God on the Day of Judgment than an unbaptized catechumen, if the latter remained unbaptized through his own negligence.
Regarding the question of whether baptism of desire can be predicated of virtuous pagans at all, I will simply quote an obscure little Jesuit scribe by the name of Fr. Leonard Feeney, of whom some of you are fond.
Oh, God is very versatile, I know, and on those who have not yet heard of the covenant that has been set up by Christ between the water we see and use, and the living water that imparts to our souls the adoption of a divine childhood, God will be able to bestow the fruits of redemption in other and special ways. But the honest, simple, clear, affirmative way of the sacrament is the best way, the way of God’s own institution and choice, which we are free to reject, at our peril.
Water at Work (http://www.fatherfeeney.org/other/omnibus.html#water)
It seems that even Fr. Feeney, in his saner moods, was not a Feeneyite. A simpler description of Baptism of Desire can not be found, and we "BoD-ers" have been defending nothing more than the above statement, which also happens to be the undeniable teaching of Holy Mother Church.
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly wrenched reason and doctrine quite off their moorings in the defense of your nonsensical idee fixe. You have nothing in support of your position but the selective misinterpretation of texts, the libelous misconstrual of what others here have said to you, and the vicious calumnies leveled against their character. Will you have the good taste now to depart from this field of battle, or will you continue on in your madness?
I don't expect you to apologize and go away. Just going away will be sufficient.
Now shut up, Ladislaus. You and your compatriot Bowler can go start your own forum somewhere if you want to talk about this anymore. I'm sure it will garner all the attention it deserves.
-
I do not believe in BoD for catechumens only. I believe that BoD for catechumens occurs, of course, but it is certainly not the only extension of the concept and is one of the least likely to be required in preactice. I also believe in BoD for certain people who are inculpably ignorant about the Catholic Church but who follow the natural law and the graces God gave to them. These can be saved, no matter where in the world they are, or when they lived, or whatever religious or cultural beliefs are practiced in their vicinity. The grace of perfect contrition and acceptance of Jesus which God mysteriously affords them is sufficient to make them a Catholic at the hour of their death, for all intents and purposes. I have no idea how often this occurs, but the possibility of it is undeniable. The Church teaches this. St. Paul taught this. Trent taught this. Even Fr. Leonard Feeney believed this, which you've apparently chosen to ignore.
You are purposely not clear in what you write. This thread is about salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit in their belief in a god that rewards. That is what you are defending.
1) Yet, you say: "I also believe in BoD for certain people who are inculpably ignorant about the Catholic Church".
Does your belief in the salvation of those "who follow the natural law and the graces God gave to them", apply only if they are inculpably ignorant?
2) re: These can be saved, no matter where in the world they are, or when they lived, or whatever religious or cultural beliefs are practiced in their vicinity. The grace of perfect contrition and acceptance of Jesus which God mysteriously affords them is sufficient to make them a Catholic at the hour of their death.
What does "acceptance of Jesus Christ" mean, how does this person manifest it? What beliefs does he explicitly have to have?
-
Now shut up, Ladislaus. You and your compatriot Bowler can go start your own forum somewhere if you want to talk about this anymore. I'm sure it will garner all the attention it deserves.
Sounds like what I would expect from someone who feels the rebuke:
"And in the ѕуηαgσgυє there was a man who had an unclean devil, and he cried out with a loud voice, Saying: Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace, and go out of him. And when the devil had thrown him into the midst, he went out of him, and hurt him not at all. (Luke 4:33-35)
-
I do not believe in BoD for catechumens only. I believe that BoD for catechumens occurs, of course, but it is certainly not the only extension of the concept and is one of the least likely to be required in practice.
I'll give you that you are honest about this. As bowler and I have both said, the issue isn't about BoD per se but about EENS, because why would BoDers get so up in arms about BoD given that it would have come to play only a few dozen times in all of Church history (assuming that it exists)?
-
I also believe in BoD for certain people who are inculpably ignorant about the Catholic Church but who follow the natural law and the graces God gave to them. These can be saved, no matter where in the world they are, or when they lived, or whatever religious or cultural beliefs are practiced in their vicinity.
Now I challenge you to be honest and admit that this ecclesiology / soteriology is at the very heart of Vatican II and that you cannot rightly reject Vatican II.
-
Good post!
Except that it doesn't apply to you. He's talking about (or appears to be talking about) a requirement for actual conversion to Catholicism. I say "appears to be" because the tendency of BoDers is to pay lip service and then two sentences later contradict the whole thing. So that remains to be seen.
Bp. George Hay (1729-1811):
“Q. What opinion, then, may be formed of the salvation of any one, in particular, who is out of the true Church of Christ, and lives in a false religion?
A. In answer to this, I may ask another question: What opinion would you form of the salvation of one who is living in the open state of mortal sin, such as adultery, robbery, impurity, or the like? No one could presume to say that that man will certainly be lost; but every one may say that, if he die in that state, without repentance, he cannot be saved. If it be the will of God positively to save him, He will, before he die, give him the grace of sincere repentance; because God Almighty expressly requires from sinners a sincere repentance as a condition without which they cannot be saved: ‘Except ye repent,’ says He, ‘ye shall all likewise perish,’ Luke, xiii. 3. The same is to be said of a person who is out of the true Church, and lives in a false religion. If he die in that state he cannot be saved; and if it be the will of God actually to save him, He will undoubtedly bring him to the true faith, and make him a member of the Church of Christ before he leaves this world; and the reason is the same as in the other case. God, as we have seen above, requires all men to be united to the Church by true faith as a condition of salvation, and therefore daily ‘adds to the Church such as shall be saved,’ Acts, ii. 47. Now, though a man be ever so great an adversary to the Church of Christ at present, or ever so great a sinner though a member of the Church, yet, as no man can know what God may be pleased to do for either before he die, so no man can pronounce and say that either the one or the other will be lost; for, if God please, He may give the light of true faith to the one, and the grace of true repentance to the other, even at their last moments, and save them…
Q. But, in the case proposed, if a person, in his last moments, shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?
A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ John, iii. 5, which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces with all his heart the light of the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments, as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.”
As has been stated many times, what the bare minimum that must be believed in order to have supernatural faith is disputed:
“Whether the knowledge of the Divine Trinity and of the Incarnation is indispensably necessary (necessitate medii) is a matter of dispute among theologians.”
The Casuist: A Collection of Cases in Moral and Pastoral Theology (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1906).
What we do know however is that those who are in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church, who receive supernatural faith and charity before their death are united to the Catholic Church in God’s eyes (the post on membership in the Church explains this in more detail).
“If I were asked to be more definite, and to point out those who are in good faith, and in a state of invincible ignorance, whether they are numerous, whether such and such persons, who, as far as their friends could see, died in a belief different from the Catholic Church, are lost, I would say, as every well-instructed Catholic must say, I know nothing about the fate of individuals. It is God alone who sees the secret of hearts. No one can tell what passes, at the last moment, between the soul and God...It is certain that judgment belongs to God alone; and that we dare not say, of any one, though his whole life may have been polluted with sin, that he is lost for all eternity. ‘Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; and he shall stand: for God is able to make him stand’ (Rom. xiv. 4).”
Catholic Christianity and Modern Unbelief (Imprimatur, 1884).
For a more in-depth comparison regarding ecclesiology: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/ecclesiology.pdf
-
...
Bp. George Hay (1729-1811):
The Casuist: A Collection of Cases in Moral and Pastoral Theology (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1906).
Catholic Christianity and Modern Unbelief (Imprimatur, 1884).
The above quotes you posted are from persons who are not Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Councils, or the catechism of Trent. Anyone that claims to "understand" anything knows this is the subject of this thread. You know this, and yet you choose to blow a smokescreen? Is it ever possible to receive a direct response from a BODer?
BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret ALL the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
BUT NO, the BODers go on to believe AND TEACH others that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards). ]THIS is the proof that they are LIARS AND OF BAD WILL! For not only do they teach others to interpret ALL the dogmas not as they are written, but they go on to teach something which no Father, Doctor, Saint, or Council has ever taught! In other words they are telling others to disregard ALL the dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and all catechisms prior to the 20th century, disregard all of that, for whatever they can find that teaches what THEY DESIRE, a 20th century catechism, a quote from a Non- Father, Saint, Doctor theologian, whatever.
Besides that your quotes are not from anyone that qualifies for this thread, the postings are a total Frankenstein of speculative theology which just leaves a person wondering thinking that EENS and the Church and the sacraments, and dogmas do not mean anything. It is hard to tell how many people the quotes come from. To add to the mess you posted (smokescreen), the first person, Bishop Hay is talking about something which no one is disputing, the possibility of conversion and salvation of everyone who is still alive. Secondly, he describes baptism of desire of the catechumen, again something which we are not debating here. Thirdly, he does discuss the possible salvation of the "dead non-catechumen by invincible ignorance" and it appears he discusses even the salvation of the dead non-invincible ignorant by implicit faith in Christ? But he concludes with basically, "who knows who is saved outside of the Church".
Suffice it to say that I could quote Bishop Hay teaching that invincible ignorance is totally misread by liberals, and it'll make an even greater mess of what you posted that he wrote. Suffice it to say that Bishop Hay does not qualify as a response since this thread is requesting quotes from Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Councils, or the catechism of Trent that teach salvation by implicit faith in Christ, whether invincible ignorant or not.
-
The second posting that started this thread of now 53 pages with no response from BODers:
For any BODer to disprove what I wrote above they will have to bring forward dogmas, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, the Catechism of Trent and catechisms prior to the 20th century that teach "that anyone can be saved in any religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ (this is called salvation for the non-baptized by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because they believe in a God that rewards)?
No one is stopping you from posting them. Please be advised that trying to talk me to death will not work. Post your proof!