Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 06:11:27 AM

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 06:11:27 AM
In the below article I make one error (that I'm aware of) when I say that Sacramental Baptism is necessary by "Divine precept" but not by "a necessity of means" when in reality Sacramental Baptism is necessary for both reasons but is not necessary by "intrinsic necessity".  What it all means is that God can save the cooperative soul without the instrumentality of water provided such a soul is, through no fault of his own, not aware of the necessity of Baptism for salvation or when he is aware but Sacramental Baptism is impossible, and or when one is not guiltily ignorant of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  In other words one who refuses sacramental Baptism or needlessly puts it off until it is too late will be damned (certainly in the first case and most likely in the second).  Additionally, one who can be reasonably expected to know of the necessity of Sacramental Baptism for salvation but avoids informing himself of this necessity for reasons of convenience or any other reason will be damned.  Apart from this the Church has consistently, authoritatively and infallibly taught that God does not damn anyone to eternal Hell-fire for things they are not guilty of [though they can be prevented from obtaining the Beatific Vision - going to Heaven - and instead enjoy a place of perfect natural happiness - Limbo] and that in fact such people can be saved [go to Heaven] within the Church provided they die in a state of sanctifying grace i.e. with a supernatural faith and perfect charity.  A supernatural faith is the belief that God exists and rewards good and punishes evil and a belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation based upon Divine Revelation.  Perfect charity is the love of God above all things.  Obviously merely thinking or convincing ourselves we love God above all things because that is what we want to believe is not the same as this actually being the case since our actions prove the veracity of our thoughts.  Who or what is the first thing we think of when we wake up and the last thing we think of when we go to bed.  Is God really more important than say TV or "relationships" or any vice or sin you are attached to and won't give up?    

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jul/jul10ftt.htm

Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation

    There are so many who speak of salvation, but they fail to realize that only through the Catholic Church, the one and only Faith on earth established by the Son of God - can man be saved. John Gregory shares the renowned work of the orthodox theologian of the 20th Century Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton as he begins a series on The Catholic Church and Salvation. His work needs to be spread widely throughout the world, especially in these times when the very man who the world thinks is a pope says atheists can be saved by "doing good." Oh, how far we have fallen if we buy that heresy. This is also timely to combat the vapid Lumen fidei just released by the CONciLIAR comrades-in-corruption Mr. Bergoglio the unFrancis and the quitter Joseph Ratzinger. Oh, we have lost so much and we need to return to our Catholic roots in order to prune off the bad branches that cling like bastardized barnacles to the bark while returning the Barque of Peter to the rightful crew to guide souls to Heaven's shore.

            "Understanding the Dogma, No Salvation Outside the Church, as the Church understands it makes sense to those who do not like to strain gnats (take a quote and have it mean something more or something different than what it actually means) and swallow camels (ignore or disassemble quotes that have a contrary meaning to their beliefs). Being saved 'within' the Church is not as complicated as some would have it be, nor is it as simple as others would have it be. It simply comes down to the heart which only God, the Just and Merciful Judge can judge at the moment of death. It comes down to whether one dies in a state of sanctifying grace or not at the moment of death."

    In this first installment of "The Catholic Church and Salvation" from Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, we start with his introduction to his book. This book shows from Scripture and Sacred Tradition the doctrinal fact that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members of the Church can be saved "within" that Church. In other words, this series will help us to understand the Dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church" in the very sense the Church understands it. Father Fenton not only goes into depth on how it is possible for non-members of the Church to be saved within the Church at the moment of death, but spends as much or even more time combating the errors which were becoming more and more prevalent in the Century before the death of Pius XII, mainly the one particular error which tried to classify the Catholic Church and "membership" in that Church as something broader than what has always been defined as the Catholic Church and how the Church defined "membership" in that Catholic Church.

    What will be thoroughly explained in these installments is the fact that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same; thereby showing the teaching of the Vatican "2" document, Lumen Gentium, which taught that the Mystical Body of Christ was something broader than the Catholic Church, to be heretical. It is astonishing that the imposters who took over the formerly Catholic structures after the death of Pius XII would "officially promulgate" in 1964 the above mentioned heresy in contradistinction to what Pius XII clearly and authoritatively taught in 1950. What perhaps is even more astounding than that is the amount of clergy, and the resultant laity that also fell for the heresy "officially promulgated" by Vatican "2" fourteen years after the contrary was infallibly taught by Pius XII:

        Some think that they are not bound by the doctrine set forth a few years ago in Our encyclical letter and based on the sources of revelation, [the doctrine] which teaches that Christ's Mystical body and the Catholic Roman Church are one and the same. Others reduce the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to attain to eternal salvation to an empty formula. [Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950]

    But there were more insidious errors which Father Fenton was combating when he wrote this book in 1958. These errors related to Catholic theologians trying to justify the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church by making it seem as if one could be considered an actual member of the Church merely by being attached to the Church through desire or by being in a state of sanctifying grace or possessing the gifts of the Holy Ghost. In other words they sought to "relax" what the Catholic Church has infallibly taught regarding membership in the Church, namely that, at a bare minimum, one must partake of the sacraments, profess the faith, and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority in order to be a member of the Catholic Church, by doing this they sought to keep the appearance of the Dogma-No Salvation Outside the Church-intact by broadening the official definition of membership in the Church, thus reducing the Dogma to a meaningless formula. In effect they taught that those who desired to be members had obtained what they desired i.e. that one could become a member of the Church by desiring it. But one does not desire what one already has. This is why one who truly desires to do whatever is necessary to be saved can be saved within that Church, but not as a member of that Church until and unless he can be counted among those who partake of the Sacraments, profess the true faith and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

    The key distinction that needed to be made by the Catholic theologians in the century leading up to the death of Pius XII was the fact that one could be saved "within" the Church without being a member of that Church. This doctrine will be proved throughout this series from numerous authoritative and infallible sources.

    All those of good will who only want to understand the Dogma, No Salvation Outside the Church, as the Church understands it easily comprehend the fact that membership in the Church does not guarantee salvation. What seems less understood, if it is considered at all, is the equally true (though not equally resultant - I believe the number of non-members ultimately saved is much less than the number of members that are damned) fact that being a non-member of the Church does not guarantee or absolutely assure damnation. A non-member can "belong" to the Church by desire so long as the other requirements are present. Again, desire, no matter how legitimate, in and of itself, and apart from the other requisites is not enough.

    Those who take the Dogma, No Salvation Outside the Church, to mean "No Salvation for non-members of the Church" do not understand the Dogma as the Church understands it, and as the Church has explained it on numerous occasions. The Church, as we will see, has repeatedly infallibly taught that non-members of the Church can be saved "within" the Church by desire, even an implicit desire, so long as the other requisites accompany that desire. This is not the same thing as teaching that desire is a Sacrament that saves or in and of itself cleanses the soul of Original and or Mortal Sin. The desire has to be animated by supernatural faith and perfect charity. The person who is invincibly ignorant of the true religion, and who sedulously [with a diligent perseverance - J.G.] obeys the natural law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God, can be saved [within the Church - J.G.] through the workings of divine light and grace.

    Such a person has already chosen God as his ultimate End. He has done this in an act of charity. He is in the state of grace, and not in the state of original or mortal sin. In this act of charity there is involved an implicit desire of entering and remaining within God's true supernatural kingdom. Such a person has had his sins remitted "within" the true Church of Jesus Christ. [Fenton capsulizing the teaching of Quanto conficiamur moerore by Pope Pius IX. Emphasis mine as any bolded commentary throughout the series will be. - J.G.]

    It is important to understand that "desire" and or "invincible ignorance" in and of themselves do not save. As has been stated, that "desire" has to be animated by a perfect charity, supernatural faith and the other requisites we will learn about in detail in this series. The sincere people who try their best to follow the natural law and do not purposely avoid truths that would be considered inconvenient to them, are, according to the Church itself (so long as all the other necessary requisites are included) "within" that Church with an unconscious yearning and desire. When they die, and look Jesus in the eyes they will not have guilt of conscience for being culpable of a mortal sin or for having purposely avoided the truth. They are those whom Jesus will look upon in admiration as having a faith not matched by many members of His household. Those who truly, even if only implicitly, desire to join His Church "have done more with less" in a manner of speaking and will be rewarded accordingly. By this I mean that they were not fortunate enough to be born into the Catholic faith or to have been taught it from their youth. Yet, by a special grace of God, they live a better moral life than many members of that Church. They do not willingly or knowingly cut themselves off from believing and doing what they suppose God would have them believe and do.

    Those who insist that one must be a member of the Church in order for salvation to become even remotely possible might learn a lesson from the parable of the poor widow who put one penny in the poor box. She gave a less amount of money than all the others. She was outside the acceptable realm of the amount that should be given according to some who watched her. But Jesus saw what they did not. She did more with less. She gave all she had, while the others only gave out of their surplus. Jesus looks at those who are non-members of the Church through no fault of their own, who give Him all they have based upon their limited resources, with more admiration than many of those members of the Church who are coasting along taking the Sacraments for granted:

    "And when He had entered into Capharnaum, there came to Him a centurion, beseeching Him,

    And saying: 'Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented.'

    And Jesus saith to Him: 'I will come, and heal him.'

    And the centurion making answer, said: 'Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.

    For I also am a man subject to authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth: and to another, Come, and he cometh: and to my servant, Do this, and he doth it.

    And Jesus hearing this, marvelled, and said to them that followed him: 'Amen, I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.

    And I say unto you, that many shall come from the East and the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven:

    But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

    And Jesus said to the centurion: 'Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee.' And the servant was healed at the same hour." (Matthew 8: 5-13; Luke 7: 6-9)

    Can the perfectly just and all-merciful Judge damn one He admires more than some actual members of His fold or kingdom? Would that be either just or merciful?

    Those who insist that all non-members of the Church who are not guilty of mortal sin suffer the pain of sense for all eternity and cannot obtain the Beatific Vision insist on two things:

    1. Those non-members of the Church not guilty of mortal sin are damned to eternal Hell-fire beyond any doubt whatsoever.

    2. God is unable and or unwilling to cleanse a soul of one who is within the Church by desire and who follows the natural law to the best of his ability and would get baptized if he knew that was required for salvation (the cleansing of Original Sin). Can you picture Jesus, on the day of a soul's particular judgment saying, "Sorry Jack, though you did all you could do to please me, and though I have the capability of cleansing you of Original Sin, I won't because you did not jump through the right hoops which you were inculpably unaware that you needed to jump through. Despite the fact that I admire what you have done with the small portion of talents you have been given, more than I admire some saved members of my kingdom who did less with more talents, you will have to burn for all eternity."

    Really?

    God and His Church are not unreasonable. But those who insist on the damnation of the just as those who deny that it is possible for non-members to be saved within the Church do are unreasonable. At least when they are obdurate in their insistence that all non-members of the Church are damned no matter the circumstance in regards to culpability and sincerity despite all the Church's authoritative and infallible teaching to the contrary. These same have the attitude towards non-members as the Pharisees who looked down on the widow who gave one cent, the fellow laborers who judged those who only worked one hour and got the same reward as those who worked twelve, and the good brother who judged the Prodigal Son who came to his senses after a time of debauchery.

    The centurion was a Gentile Roman soldier. He was not a member of the true Church as the believing Israelites were. But he had heard about Jesus and believed He could heal his servant, and not only that but he was humble enough to realize how unworthy he was to have Jesus near him. He may have believed Jesus was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity but that seems doubtful to me. But even if he did our Feeneyites, if they were around then would have said this Centurion was surely damned if he had not been circumcised and therefore was not an actual member of the Church, even if he intended to get circumcised but died before he could be circumcised or before he could have a fully Catholic understanding of Who Jesus actually was. If he died without being circumcised before the New Covenant, according to them, he would be damned, and if he lived long enough for the New Covenant to be established but had not yet been baptized through no fault of his own he would have be damned according to them. But is this what Jesus says?

    God judges effort and sincerity more than results and many of us can be thankful for that. If you tried your best and did "D" work but put forth "A" effort you get an A. So long as you did not culpably slack off in any area. If you tried your best on most things and were highly successful in almost all areas but were culpably and unrepentantly sinful in one grave area, all your successful works are for not.

    It cuts both ways. It is indeed possible for non-members to be saved.

    But one only has to culpably fail in one area to be damned. God is perfectly just. He does not damn the innocent non-members or let wicked members slide in. One can do as much natural good as Mother Therese and be damned and one could do very little of the corporal works of mercy and still die in a state of sanctifying grace and be saved. It all comes down to, along with the other requisites necessary for baptism of desire, whether one dies unrepentant of what one knows or believes to be a serious sin or not. One who knows that baptism is necessary (with a necessity of precept, not by necessity of means) to be saved but needlessly puts baptism off is culpable of a serious sin and will die culpable of mortal sin and with Original Sin on his soul.

    Would it be just or merciful for God to condemn one for something he was not culpable of? Of course not. But God is all just and all merciful. If given a choice would you prefer to die as a legitimate member of the Catholic Church guilty of mortal sin or as a non-member not guilty of mortal sin? Who do you think God looks upon more favorably on the Day of Judgment? When God judges souls He does not stand next to Saint Peter with His eyes to the ground blind to the state of a man's soul merely asking for proof of membership. "License and registration please." God is not a technical bureaucrat judging a man's eternal fate over a purported formality. He looks into the heart to see if one is guilty (committed that which he believed or knew to be a mortal sin and was not legitimately repentant of it) of a grievous sin or not.

    Of course it can be reasonably assumed that some, many, perhaps the vast majority of all non-members, do not become members of the Catholic Church because of her moral teachings or for some other illegitimate reason and therefore are culpable for not becoming members. They disagree with her teaching, are not willing to change their lifestyles or are unwilling to believe Jesus is the second Person of the Holy Trinity because they need proof, and as a result are unwilling to look into the matter further. These people can neither be said to desire to enter the Church or to be inculpably ignorant of the necessity of the Church for salvation. They do not consider or care whether the Catholic Church is the true Church or not. They care about their lifestyles, refuse to believe what they cannot experience with their senses and are not going to let any Church tell them to the contrary. They have taken the place of God as the arbiters of truth and judgers of good and evil. Anyone who stops themselves from knowing truth or conforming to God's will willingly and persistently for the sake of convenience or any other illegitimate reason willfully maintain themselves outside the kingdom of God and from the possibility of salvation.

    Keep in mind that these damned can do many natural good works such as feeding the poor, selfless service to the less fortunate and many other great acts that from a naturalistic and exterior perspective, put many who will be saved to shame. But they lack the one essential ingredient. Membership in the Church? No. Sanctifying grace. The sanctifying grace that God freely gives to the sincere and pure of heart not guilty of mortal sin. It is God Who cleanses the soul of Original sin in one who is baptized with water, blood or in desire. That is what God clearly teaches through His Church. But some insist on being disappointed that it is possible for the just to be saved if they are not members of the Church, even after the infallible teachings of the Church to the contrary are presented to them.

    Understanding the Dogma, No Salvation Outside the Church, as the Church understands it makes sense to those who do not like to strain gnats (take a quote and have it mean something more or something different than what it actually means) and swallow camels (ignore or disassemble quotes that have a contrary meaning to their beliefs). Being saved "within" the Church is not as complicated as some would have it be, nor is it as simple as others would have it be. It simply comes down to the heart which only God, the Just and Merciful Judge can judge at the moment of death. It comes down to whether one dies in a state of sanctifying grace or not at the moment of death.

    A non-member can die in a state of sanctifying grace but his sins are forgiven only through that Church that he is within by desire. Keep in mind that one who at least implicitly desires to be a member of the true Church is within that Church (so long as all the other requisites accompany that authentic desire) though not as a member. All of this does not undermine the grave necessity for all to seek the Truth and embrace it to the degree they are capable. Anyone who knows or reasonably should know that the Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation but refuses to become a member will be damned.

Introduction

        In his encyclical Humani generis Pope Pius XII referred to a statement by his great predecessor, Pope Pius IX, to the effect that the noblest function of sacred theology is that of showing how the doctrine defined by the Church is found in the sources of revelation-that is, in Sacred Scripture and in divine apostolic tradition-in the very sense in which the Church has proposed it. This book is the result of a laborious and humble effort to do this with reference to what the ecclesiastical teaching authority has taught and defined about the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation.

        Few dogmas of the Catholic faith have been commented upon and interpreted in twentieth-century theological and religious literature as frequently and extensively as that which teaches us that there is no salvation outside the true Church of Jesus Christ. Hence any new book on this subject ought at least to try to offer some theological advantage on this subject not already available in currently accessible Catholic literature. The author of this present work sincerely believes that its publication is justified for these three reasons:

    (1) This book quotes, and quotes, at length, pertinent statements and definitions by the Holy See and by the Church's Oecumenical Councils on the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation. It analyzes these pronouncements and brings out explicitly the Catholic teachings referred to and implied in them. Then it examines the dogma, as it has been stated and explained by the Church's magisterium, in the light of what the sources of revelation have to say about the nature of the Church and about the processes of salvation and sanctification. Thus it is able to show that what the Church itself has always taught and defined on this subject is precisely what the divine message, contained in Scripture and tradition, has to say about salvation and about God's supernatural kingdom.

        Any person who is at all familiar with what the great mass of religious and theological writings of our times have had to say about this dogma is quite well aware of the fact that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, these writings have been mainly, almost exclusively, concerned with proving and explaining how this dogma does not mean that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved. This, of course, is perfectly true. The ecclesiastical magisterium, in teaching and guarding this dogma, insists that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and at the same time likewise insists that people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific Vision.

        But if we, for all practical purposes, limit our explanation of the dogma to an assurance that it does not mean that every man who dies a non-member of the Catholic Church is not necessarily lost forever-as so many modern writings on this subject seem to do-we tend to lose sight of the central mysteries of God's merciful dispensation in the supernatural order. For, let us not forget it, the revealed truths about the necessity of the Catholic Church for the attainment of eternal salvation belong to the order of the great supernatural mysteries. They belong with God's revealed doctrine about grace, about the process of salvation, the work of the Redemption, and the Blessed Trinity. In showing how the teachings of the ecclesiastical magisterium are contained in the sources of revelation in the very sense in which they have been stated and defined by the Church itself, we can see this dogma of the Church precisely as the accurate and authoritative expression of a revealed mystery.

    (2) During the pontificate of the present Holy Father [Pius XII] three authoritative documents issued by the Holy See have instructed the members of the Church about the meaning of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Two of these are encyclical letters, the Mystici Corporis Christi, issued June 29, 1943, and the Humani generis, dated August 12, 1950. The third is the Holy Office letter Suprema haec sacra, addressed by order of the Holy Father August 8, 1949, to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston. The doctrinal section of this last document is devoted exclusively to an explanation of this dogma. It is the most completely detailed statement of this teaching ever set forth in an authoritative document of the Church's magisterium.

        There would obviously seem to be, not only room for, but an actual need of, a book that would present and analyze the teachings on this subject brought out in these three recent documents from the Holy See. And, in the lack of any other work in English devoted exclusively to the explanation of this portion of Catholic doctrine and written since the appearance of these three documents, the present book is humbly offered in the hope that it may satisfy that need.

    (3) In the Humani generis the present Holy Father sternly rebuked some contemporary Catholic writers because, as he said, "they reduce to an empty formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to attain to eternal salvation." Actually this particular part of Catholic doctrine is unique in that an inaccurate interpretation or presentation of it by a Catholic writer does actually constitute, in most cases, the reduction of this teaching to an empty formula.

        Furthermore the vagaries of some writers, particularly in the field of popular religious literature, on the subject, are in some way explicable in terms of the peculiar history of the tractatus de ecclesia within the body of scholastic theology. A sketch of this history is available in the present volume, since I believe that the man who knows something about the basis of some of the more colorful misinterpretations of the dogma will be in a better position to appreciate and to defend the genuine teaching of the Church in this field.

        This introduction would not be complete without an expression of sincere gratitude to the Very Reverend Dr. Francis J. Connell, C. SS. R., for these last fourteen years my brilliant and faithful associate in the work of The American Ecclesiastical Review. He has been kind enough to read and to correct the manuscript of this book with the same charitable care he has given to the reading and the correction of all I have written for publication since our association began.

    If you love Truth, this intro has you salivating a bit. The Catholic Church has no false agenda and God does not damn those who are not guilty [culpable] of mortal sin. We will see that it is possible for a non-member of the Catholic Church to die in a state of sanctifying grace much as it is quite possible for a member to be damned. The Dogma, No Salvation Outside the Church, is not about membership so much as it is about sincerity of heart and dying in a state of sanctifying grace i.e. being "within" the Church at least by an active, though even implicit desire that is leading one towards membership that may not be obtained until the moment of death. If you die in a state of sanctifying grace you die within the Church and instantaneously become a member of the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant where no Protestants are allowed.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Amen on June 26, 2014, 06:30:00 AM
We will see that it is possible for a non-member of the Catholic Church to die in a state of sanctifying grace much as it is quite possible for a member to be damned.

Amen:
Yes it is possible.
However are you inferring that this case would be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints ?
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 07:21:47 AM
Quote from: Amen
We will see that it is possible for a non-member of the Catholic Church to die in a state of sanctifying grace much as it is quite possible for a member to be damned.

Amen:
Yes it is possible.
However are you inferring that this case would be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints ?


This is a very reasonable question.  To be precise (I hope) this case would be in conformity with the accurate interpretation of the Dogma.  That is it fits in with the understanding of the Dogma as the Church understands it.  

Now is it common for non-members to be saved within the Church?  I would venture to say certainly not.  For even if there are a few not culpably ignorant of the necessity of Sacramental Baptism and the necessity to die within the Church for salvation to be possible, how many people have an effective desire accompanied by a supernatural faith and perfect charity compared to those who merely wish all is good without endeavoring to make sure?  

There are no exceptions to the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You agree it is possible for a non-member of the Catholic Church to die in a state of sanctifying grace and rightfully so.   I suppose you would further agree that sanctifying grace can only be obtained within the Church.  Non-members can obtain this grace, but only within the Church which is the only place salvation is possible.  No exceptions.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 08:26:38 AM
Quote from: Amen
There are no exceptions to the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church.

No exceptions.  

Amen:
Would you say that explicit for us baptism of desire is not an exception to EENS ?
Or is explciit for us baptism of desire an explcit exception to EENS?

Would you say that implcit for us baptism of desire is not an exception to EENS?
Or would you say that implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire is an explcit exception to EENS?

You do  agree that the baptism of desire can be explicit  or implicit for us ?




There is no exception to EENS.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 08:38:38 AM
Quote from: Amen
There are no exceptions to the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church.

No exceptions.  

Amen:
Would you say that explicit for us baptism of desire is not an exception to EENS ?
Or is explciit for us baptism of desire an explcit exception to EENS?

Would you say that implcit for us baptism of desire is not an exception to EENS?
Or would you say that implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire is an explcit exception to EENS?

You do  agree that the baptism of desire can be explicit  or implicit for us ?




Desire to be within the Church can be explicit or implicit, it can also be fruitless.  (one thing)

Baptism of the Holy Ghost [desire] either happens or does not but is not visible to the human eye on earth.  (another thing)

Desire to be within the Church is one thing and can be implicit or explicit.

Baptism of desire is something else which either happens or does not.  

This would be like saying "I [implicitly/explicitly] got hit in the head with a baseball".  You either got hit in the head with a baseball or not.  Adding the term implicit or explicit does not alter the fact.  

One can desire to be hit by a baseball explicitly.  Or one could desire to get a bump on a head and perhaps implicitly desire to be hit in the head with a baseball.  But his desire may not be an effective desire.  His desire cannot cause the result.  He would need to do something about this desire such as saying either "Can you please cause my head to get a bump on it?"  Or "Can you please hit me on the head with a baseball?"  But even then the desire may not be enough to get the result.  The person of whom he makes this request would have to comply.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on June 26, 2014, 09:47:21 AM
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Cantarella on June 26, 2014, 11:21:01 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 12:06:58 PM
I am seeing very good points in the spaces between your words.  Keep up the good work.  You are quite bright and beautiful.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 12:08:38 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Feeneyites redefine "outside" NO redefines "Church".  I present the Catholic teaching.  You can continue to reject it or not.

Carry on.   :cheers:
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on June 26, 2014, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.



I do not believe in salvation by implicit desire.  That would be like saying you believe in salvation by water apart from the formula.  Is that what you believe?  Then don't falsely accuse me.

Carry on.   :cheers:
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on June 26, 2014, 02:17:43 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
In the below article I make one error (that I'm aware of) when I say that Sacramental Baptism is necessary by "Divine precept" but not by "a necessity of means" when in reality Sacramental Baptism is necessary for both reasons but is not necessary by "intrinsic necessity".  What it all means is that God can save the cooperative soul without the instrumentality of water provided such a soul is, through no fault of his own, not aware of the necessity of Baptism for salvation or when he is aware but Sacramental Baptism is impossible, and or when one is not guiltily ignorant of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.


Is it any wonder that people like myself have problems with Baptism of Desire?  EVERY SINGLE attempt to explain it leads to contradictions and heresy.

So you claim that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means but then go on to say the exact opposite, that it's not necessary if someone is ignorant of the necessity "through no fault of his own".  But if you're excused due to inculpable ignorance then IT IS NO LONGER A NECESSITY OF MEANS BUT OF PRECEPT.  You had to admit that it's wrong to say Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept, but then essentially SAY the same thing anyway, despite paying lip service to "necessity of means".

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.


Then, with your falsely-applied distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, you once again deny the dogma of Trent that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation by stating that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Extrinsic necessity speaks to what God CAN do.  This has nothing to do with what He CAN do.  It has everything to do with what He has revealed that He ACTUALLY DOES.

And, for crying out loud, I have actually EXPLAINED to you how you can retain your belief in BoD WITHOUT rejecting the dogma, by at least adopting the language that people receive Baptism in voto and that the Sacrament acts as the instrumental cause of justification by way of that votum.  But you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to do this ... most likely due to pride.  You again refer to the Holy Sacrament of Baptism disparagingly as "water".  Before you used the repugnant phrase "water and words" in the tone of "smells and bells".

I've given you multiple opportunities to correct yourself, but you refuse.  Consequently, you are a heretic and anathema for rejecting the dogmatic teaching of Trent.

What competence and credibility do you have when you make the obvious blunder of referring to Baptism as necessary by a necessity of means?

You need to shut down your blog or limit yourself to discussing menu options for Fridays in Lent.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on June 26, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on June 26, 2014, 03:34:35 PM
LoT, your definition of extrinsic necessity = necessity of precept.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Cantarella on June 27, 2014, 07:22:06 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.



I do not believe in salvation by implicit desire.  That would be like saying you believe in salvation by water apart from the formula.  Is that what you believe?  Then don't falsely accuse me.

Carry on.   :cheers:


Modernists re-interpret defined Catholic dogma with ambiguity and subjectivism. They claim that the old and ageless formula that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be re-defined to fit the current times. A classic example, BOD adherents and other modernists claiming to be "traditionalists" say that salvation is not IN, but THROUGH the Church. In doing this, the share the same error with the liberals whom they condemn. People who are not "in" the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to the modernists the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is really salvation outside the Church.

It is simple logic that can be explained to first communicants. There is no need to color the thrice defined dogma that only Catholics go to Heaven and to be a Catholic, you must be water baptized.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 28, 2014, 10:48:29 AM
.

Look at that pathetic army.  

So poorly dressed for battle, so ill-equipped to fight...

The fundamental problem is sedevacantism, speaking of being ill-equipped to fight.

Hear the whole sermon:

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/3eqgezudirb2g11/Fr+J+Pfeiffer+5-4-14%2C+Canada%2C+Canon+of+the+Mass+and+Sedevacantism.mp3


.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 05:21:13 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Again, the Feeneyites redefine "within" and the Novus Ordo redefines "Church".  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 05:22:16 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.



You do not know what you are talking about.  You just state things as if you are some sort of authority.  The Church knows better.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 05:25:05 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
In the below article I make one error (that I'm aware of) when I say that Sacramental Baptism is necessary by "Divine precept" but not by "a necessity of means" when in reality Sacramental Baptism is necessary for both reasons but is not necessary by "intrinsic necessity".  What it all means is that God can save the cooperative soul without the instrumentality of water provided such a soul is, through no fault of his own, not aware of the necessity of Baptism for salvation or when he is aware but Sacramental Baptism is impossible, and or when one is not guiltily ignorant of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.


Is it any wonder that people like myself have problems with Baptism of Desire?  EVERY SINGLE attempt to explain it leads to contradictions and heresy.

So you claim that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means but then go on to say the exact opposite, that it's not necessary if someone is ignorant of the necessity "through no fault of his own".  But if you're excused due to inculpable ignorance then IT IS NO LONGER A NECESSITY OF MEANS BUT OF PRECEPT.  You had to admit that it's wrong to say Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept, but then essentially SAY the same thing anyway, despite paying lip service to "necessity of means".

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.


Then, with your falsely-applied distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity, you once again deny the dogma of Trent that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation by stating that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Extrinsic necessity speaks to what God CAN do.  This has nothing to do with what He CAN do.  It has everything to do with what He has revealed that He ACTUALLY DOES.

And, for crying out loud, I have actually EXPLAINED to you how you can retain your belief in BoD WITHOUT rejecting the dogma, by at least adopting the language that people receive Baptism in voto and that the Sacrament acts as the instrumental cause of justification by way of that votum.  But you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to do this ... most likely due to pride.  You again refer to the Holy Sacrament of Baptism disparagingly as "water".  Before you used the repugnant phrase "water and words" in the tone of "smells and bells".

I've given you multiple opportunities to correct yourself, but you refuse.  Consequently, you are a heretic and anathema for rejecting the dogmatic teaching of Trent.

What competence and credibility do you have when you make the obvious blunder of referring to Baptism as necessary by a necessity of means?

You need to shut down your blog or limit yourself to discussing menu options for Fridays in Lent.


You are unable to make proper distinctions.  It is necessary by necessity of means and by divine precept but not by intrinsic necessity.  Eating fruit is not evil unless God tells you not to.  If God makes a general decree that no one should eat fruit and one, through no fault of his own, is not aware of this decree he will not be culpable of disobeying God if he eats fruit.  Very basic stuff sir.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 05:26:31 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.


They did not correct my blunder.  Monsignor Fenton did.  Please be grateful to him and learn from him.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 05:28:24 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
LoT, your definition of extrinsic necessity = necessity of precept.


Intrinsic necessity.  Something that is necessary in and of itself apart from divine precept.  There are moral absolutes.  Things always true or false right or wrong written into the nature of things.  Water being necessary for salvation is not one of them.   These things are obvious on the face of it but you won't get it.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 05:29:31 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.



I do not believe in salvation by implicit desire.  That would be like saying you believe in salvation by water apart from the formula.  Is that what you believe?  Then don't falsely accuse me.

Carry on.   :cheers:


Modernists re-interpret defined Catholic dogma with ambiguity and subjectivism. They claim that the old and ageless formula that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be re-defined to fit the current times. A classic example, BOD adherents and other modernists claiming to be "traditionalists" say that salvation is not IN, but THROUGH the Church. In doing this, the share the same error with the liberals whom they condemn. People who are not "in" the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to the modernists the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is really salvation outside the Church.

It is simple logic that can be explained to first communicants. There is no need to color the thrice defined dogma that only Catholics go to Heaven and to be a Catholic, you must be water baptized.


You are guilty of reinterpreting the dogma it is an invention of the late 1940's and 50's.

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 02, 2014, 06:48:36 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".

If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).


Typical modernist double talk.

Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.

Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.



I do not believe in salvation by implicit desire.  That would be like saying you believe in salvation by water apart from the formula.  Is that what you believe?  Then don't falsely accuse me.

Carry on.   :cheers:


Modernists re-interpret defined Catholic dogma with ambiguity and subjectivism. They claim that the old and ageless formula that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be re-defined to fit the current times. A classic example, BOD adherents and other modernists claiming to be "traditionalists" say that salvation is not IN, but THROUGH the Church. In doing this, the share the same error with the liberals whom they condemn. People who are not "in" the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to the modernists the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is really salvation outside the Church.

It is simple logic that can be explained to first communicants. There is no need to color the thrice defined dogma that only Catholics go to Heaven and to be a Catholic, you must be water baptized.


You are guilty of reinterpreting the dogma it is an invention of the late 1940's and 50's.




See, like all modernists, you continually demonstrate your blatant dishonesty by accusing those who speak the truth of being guilty of what in actuality, you yourself are guilty of. That is and has always been one of the tactics of the modernists and you and the NSAAers are professionals at this tactic.  

The First Vatican Council infallibly decrees that:
"the meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

The above decree has been replaced by the modernist enemies of the Church with the new axiom:
"Dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

You and the rest of the NSAAers reject the infallible decree of V1 completely while embracing the new axiom of modernist invention and deception.

But wait, that's not sufficient for the modernist enemies - there's more.

The above new axiom has an additional and inseparable new axiom, the two axioms are so closely related that they are married to one another - and it goes like this:
"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Between these two modernist axioms is why you, no matter how you say it,  accept that there is salvation outside the Church - and you and the other NSAAers fall head over heels for the new axioms, the modernist doctrines, without the slightest regard to the decree of V1.

Between those two modernist doctrines, 1) dogma becomes something which needs interpreting, which in turn, as you and your fellow NSAAers continually demonstrate, allows NSAAers to obliterate the meaning of dogma, and 2) rewards salvation without the sacraments, without the Church and without the faith, to those presumed ignorant of the true faith.

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 07:49:39 AM
You've got Wathen, Feeney and the Dimonds, I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.  You have a novel invention.  I have the Catholic Church.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 02, 2014, 08:43:58 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
You've got Wathen, Feeney and the Dimonds, I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.  You have a novel invention.  I have the Catholic Church.


No, you attempt to invoke those good saints and the Church (outside of which there is no salvation) to support your heresy - the truth is you have Cardinal Cushing, all the conciliar popes and modernist theologians and hierarchy. According to you, there is no need for the sacraments hence no need for the Church - why do you say you have the Catholic Church when there is no need for it?

Again, you falsely and continually demonstrate your blatant dishonesty by accusing those who speak the truth of being guilty of what in actuality, you yourself are guilty of.




 
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 02, 2014, 08:44:32 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.


Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.


Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.


So you say.  But you are incorrect.  To you the truth is nothing to me it is everything.  Do you have anything intelligent to say or just more ad hominen attacks?
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 02, 2014, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.


Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.


Quote
To you the truth is nothing to me it is everything.


Nonsense.  I just know the truth to be different than what you want it to be.

Quote
Do you have anything intelligent to say or just more ad hominen attacks?


That was not an ad hominem but rather a response to your allegation that you have St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on your side.  I call nonsense.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 02, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.


Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.


Quote
To you the truth is nothing to me it is everything.


Nonsense.  I just know the truth to be different than what you want it to be.

Quote
Do you have anything intelligent to say or just more ad hominen attacks?


That was not an ad hominem but rather a response to your allegation that you have St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on your side.  I call nonsense.


Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?  Why is their interpretation of it wrong and yours correct?  It's a rhetorical question.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 02, 2014, 04:10:31 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I got Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus.


Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus wouldn't recongize you as a Catholic for your denial of EENS and denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You've got nothing.

Thomas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus would declare Suprema Haec to be heretical.


Quote
To you the truth is nothing to me it is everything.


Nonsense.  I just know the truth to be different than what you want it to be.

Quote
Do you have anything intelligent to say or just more ad hominen attacks?


That was not an ad hominem but rather a response to your allegation that you have St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on your side.  I call nonsense.


Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?  Why is their interpretation of it wrong and yours correct?  It's a rhetorical question.  


The First Vatican Council was held from 1869 to 1870. This is when the Church ended the misinterpretations of dogma with the decree stating: "Hence too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."


This was decreed 249 years after St. Robert died and 83 years after St. Alphonsus died - and it's been 144 years since this was decreed infallibly.

What's your excuse for not submitting to the infallible decree?

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 02, 2014, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?


This has absolutely nothing to do with Trent but rather with your rejection of EENS.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 03, 2014, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?


This has absolutely nothing to do with Trent but rather with your rejection of EENS.


You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong.  They both interpreted Trent correctly.  You do not.  I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 03, 2014, 05:26:29 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?


This has absolutely nothing to do with Trent but rather with your rejection of EENS.


You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong.  They both interpreted Trent correctly.  You do not.  I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.



LoT, the lying hypocrite that he is, rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1 while attempting to invoke the good saints to support his error. We know he blatantly rejects it because as of three posts ago, we was educated in the matter.

I say this for the benefit of fresh lurkers who happen across LoT's posts.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 03, 2014, 09:14:40 AM
I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote
the lying hypocrite that he is


Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores?  This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote
rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1


There you have it.  He said it so it must be true.  Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.  

Very rich indeed.  

 :cheers:
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 03, 2014, 09:30:24 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?


This has absolutely nothing to do with Trent but rather with your rejection of EENS.


You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong.  They both interpreted Trent correctly.  You do not.  I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.


Again, see above.  This has nothing to do with BoD proper.  You hide behind BoD to justify EENS-denial, which neither Bellarmine or Alphonsus would ever have done.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 03, 2014, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Would Bellarmine and Alphonsus call Trent heretical?


This has absolutely nothing to do with Trent but rather with your rejection of EENS.


You say Bellarmine and Alphonsus got it wrong.  They both interpreted Trent correctly.  You do not.  I pray you get this and gain the Catholic Faith before you die.


Again, see above.  This has nothing to do with BoD proper.  You hide behind BoD to justify EENS-denial, which neither Bellarmine or Alphonsus would ever have done.


Incorrect.  The above Sainted Doctors of the Church teach that it is possible for one to be justified by the desire for Baptism and Alphonsus teaches this is De Fide based upon Trent.  The interpreted the Latin correctly.  If you do not grant this we cannot even talk.

But let's get it out there.  Do you believe Bellarmine and Alphonsus understood Latin well enough, considering they were fluent in it, to interpret the teaching of Trent correctly?  Or did they both mess up on this issue?  

Do you claim Baptism of Desire is erroneous or heretical?  Or do you agree with Bellarmine and Alphonsus against the teaching of the Feeneyites and their accusation that the Sainted Doctors erred on this issue?  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 04, 2014, 05:01:26 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote
the lying hypocrite that he is


Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores?  This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote
rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1


There you have it.  He said it so it must be true.  Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.  

Very rich indeed.  

 :cheers:



Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.

You just keep trumpeting the same modernist teachings, invoking the names of great saints in your attempt to support your heresy of preaching the reception of the sacrament is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Cantarella on July 04, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth


Incorrect.  The above Sainted Doctors of the Church teach that it is possible for one to be justified by the desire for Baptism and Alphonsus teaches this is De Fide based upon Trent.  The interpreted the Latin correctly.  If you do not grant this we cannot even talk.
 


Yes, but they were FAR FAR FAR from believing that non - Catholics can be saved without even an explicit belief in Christ, as you do. Or to believe in salvation by "justification alone", like you do. Again, NONE of these saints that you are fond of citing believe in the heresy that you actually believe in and promote: salvation of the invincible ignorant via implicit desire.

You care not for BOD or BOB. As a matter of fact, the case for BOD had never even been relevant or an issue with EENS. the Americanists made it one. The error of invincible ignorance comes from the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and was carried over Vatican II documents and rapidly spread by the modernist liberals who are in power and control all channels of information.

Alphonsus and Bellarmine would be totally horrified to see how you have twisted and abused their teachings to promote your novel heresies. I doubt that these sedevacantists BOD adherents are actually taking the Sacraments dispensed only by the Catholic Church, to nourish their spiritual lives and achieve salvation (after all, they don't even think that the sacraments are necessary for salvation). I am willing to bet that most do not. That would explain a lot for their spiritual blindness.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 07, 2014, 07:48:02 AM
Okay.  You are right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.  I get it.  I don't understand why I did not see this before.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 07, 2014, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
[Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.


I gave credit to Nishant for using the formulation receiving Baptism in voto, but these other guys are obstinate in their denial of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 07, 2014, 10:03:36 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Okay.  You are right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.  I get it.  I don't understand why I did not see this before.


Again, you hide behind Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus by pretending that their understanding of BoD backs up your heretical view of Faith of Desire, denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology.  Not even close.  Don't pretend that you have these Doctors on your side.  They would anathematize you.

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 07, 2014, 10:09:48 AM
You don't see it because you choose blind and bind yourself to saints speculation instead of the infallible decrees of the Church. You have some misguided idea that the Church submits to the judgement of saints instead - as your own signature teaches - the other way around.  

You need to believe that: Trent is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

You need to believe that: The Church is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.



 


Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 10, 2014, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
You don't see it because you choose blind and bind yourself to saints speculation instead of the infallible decrees of the Church. You have some misguided idea that the Church submits to the judgement of saints instead - as your own signature teaches - the other way around.  

You need to believe that: Trent is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

You need to believe that: The Church is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.



 




Father forgive them for they know not what they do.  I'm fully aware of the "no one is infallible" objection.  It doesn't work.  It is a tactic used by non-believers to believe what they want or prefer to believe.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 10, 2014, 01:24:32 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
You don't see it because you choose blind and bind yourself to saints speculation instead of the infallible decrees of the Church. You have some misguided idea that the Church submits to the judgement of saints instead - as your own signature teaches - the other way around.  

You need to believe that: Trent is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.

You need to believe that: The Church is right and Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus are wrong.



 




Father forgive them for they know not what they do.  I'm fully aware of the "no one is infallible" objection.  It doesn't work.  It is a tactic used by non-believers to believe what they want or prefer to believe.  


Wrong again.

We have the use of reason for a reason, all you need do is use it.

The saints you keep invoking to support your error, as your own signature testifies, are not the Church. Why don't you do like your signature and submit to the judgement of the Church?

You must understand the dogma as the Church Herself understand it  - per the First Vatican Council, the Church Herself understand the meaning "as once declared", not as explained by the likes of Fenton.  

Trent, is "the Church".

Trent decrees the sacraments are necessary unto salvation.
Trent decrees the sacrament of baptism is a necessity, not an option unto salvation.

Whoever disagrees with this, always is and always was, wrong.

As Fr. Wathen writes: "Such a dogmatic statement is the most certain knowledge that men have, more certain than metaphysical principles, or mathematical formulas, or historical accounts. It is the revelation and proposition of God Himself."

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: JPaul on July 10, 2014, 08:34:41 PM
Quote
As Fr. Wathen writes: "Such a dogmatic statement is the most certain knowledge that men have, more certain than metaphysical principles, or mathematical formulas, or historical accounts. It is the revelation and proposition of God Himself."



Is it any small wonder as to why he has often been maligned by the weak minded. A man who never compromised Catholic Truth.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 10, 2014, 08:39:18 PM
.

The Church has never taught that everything the saints say is definitive.  

The Church has ALWAYS taught that the Pope and the Pope ALONE has the power of the Keys, which Our Lord gave to St. Peter, and by extension, to all the popes who would succeed him.  

The Pope ALONE has this power, and it is only because the pope approves of the canons and decrees of Trent and all the other TWENTY Oecumenical Councils, that the Councils carry the note of infallibility.  

Anything the pope ONCE CONDEMNS in regards to faith or morals (inclusive!) is condemned in eternity, that is, it is the revelation of God.  The pope cannot condemn such a thing in error.

But there were no papal condemnations in Vatican II (the twenty-first Oecumenical Council), and this is emphasized by the Opening Speech of John XXIII, in which he said, no more condemnations.

He said the Church would now rely on the "medicine of mercy" instead of papal condemnation of error, but he forgot to point out that God's mercy is NOT MEDICINE.  Therefore, "medicine of mercy" is NONSENSE.  And yet, he was 'replacing' papal condemnation (the power of the Keys) effectively, with NONSENSE!!!  



This egregious error has not been rectified yet, and it has been now 52 years running.  And don't say that a 'real' pope cannot make such an error, because he was not defining nor was he condemning error.  He was COMMITTING ERROR, and it was not protected by the Holy Ghost when he did so.  This is how Modernism is so dangerous even for a pope.

Pope St. Pius X defined Modernism infallibly, and nowhere in his encyclical Pascendi did he say that the pope is in any way immune from Modernism.  On the contrary, he said that Modernism would rise again, and it has the power to become the wreck and ruin of ALL RELIGION.  That includes what the pope does and says.


.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 14, 2014, 08:27:18 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.


In correct again.  I learned it from Father Fenton.  I know better where I learned such a thing than you do.  Are you going to deny that as well.  What I have learned from the Feeneyites is their bitterness, anger, error and hate, plus an incredible intellectual pride that can only be matched by their blindness.  

So on second thought I guess I have learned from the Feeneyites.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 14, 2014, 08:38:44 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote
the lying hypocrite that he is


Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores?  This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote
rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1


There you have it.  He said it so it must be true.  Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.  

Very rich indeed.  

 :cheers:



Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.

You just keep trumpeting the same modernist teachings, invoking the names of great saints in your attempt to support your heresy of preaching the reception of the sacrament is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.



I understand the necessity of the sacraments for salvation as the Church does.  You don't.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 14, 2014, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.


In correct again.  I learned it from Father Fenton.


Nonsense.  You published your erroneous view long after you had read Father Fenton and had promoted his papers.  We can quite clearly trace the timeframe for your retraction to shortly after we corrected you on your persistent attempts to characterize the necessity of Baptism as a necessity of precept.  You simply are not honest, LoT.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 15, 2014, 05:43:32 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.


In correct again.  I learned it from Father Fenton.


Nonsense.  You published your erroneous view long after you had read Father Fenton and had promoted his papers.  We can quite clearly trace the timeframe for your retraction to shortly after we corrected you on your persistent attempts to characterize the necessity of Baptism as a necessity of precept.  You simply are not honest, LoT.


I re-read each chapter several times and caught myself.  It was published in Daily Catholic shortly after my first reading and he has not been able to correct it.  

I learned this from Fenton.  I have not noticed the Feeneyites being capable of making such distinctions.  If I didn't mention the error you probably would not have noticed it.

Quite calling me a liar when I am not.   I would give the credit if it were ever due.  I have given the Dimonds credit many times.  

Speak to the issue man or take you seat.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 15, 2014, 06:58:10 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote
the lying hypocrite that he is


Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores?  This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote
rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1


There you have it.  He said it so it must be true.  Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.  

Very rich indeed.  

 :cheers:



Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.

You just keep trumpeting the same modernist teachings, invoking the names of great saints in your attempt to support your heresy of preaching the reception of the sacrament is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.



I understand the necessity of the sacraments for salvation as the Church does.  You don't.


Not true. You preach that you understand the sacrament to be optional, in direct contradiction of what the Church teaches.

If what you say were the truth, you would be able to defend the sacraments as the Church defends them, not continually promote that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, salvation through faith alone - this is not Church teaching, Trent anathematizes that teaching.

The biggest fraud perpetrated against the faith is the modernist teaching that says: "You must understand dogma as the Church Herself understand it" - - - - then they proceed to reduce dogma to a meaningless formula.

Per the First Vatican Council, the Church Herself understands the meaning "as once declared", not as explained by the likes of Fenton.

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Ladislaus on July 15, 2014, 08:37:00 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I have not noticed the Feeneyites being capable of making such distinctions.  If I didn't mention the error you probably would not have noticed it.


As I said, I called you out on this several times before you made your retraction.  It is we who understand "such distinctions", while you Cushingites clearly do not.  I had to call out Don Paolo about 50 times on the same issue.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 15, 2014, 11:24:56 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I have not noticed the Feeneyites being capable of making such distinctions.  If I didn't mention the error you probably would not have noticed it.


As I said, I called you out on this several times before you made your retraction.  It is we who understand "such distinctions", while you Cushingites clearly do not.  I had to call out Don Paolo about 50 times on the same issue.


BTW - I don't recall you calling me out on such a thing.  But unlike you I do not accuse you of lying.  Accuse me of what you want.  That does not change the fact that I follow Church teaching on the issue and you do not.  You are straining a gnat for no good reason.  I know what I learned and who I learned it from.  Besides since when do Feeneyites teach that baptism is not necessary by intrinsic necessity?  I haven't heard it from them.

Take a seat sir and let those who have something to say on the issue have a turn.  I would like to know what part of my article people believe is in error.  
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Cantarella on July 15, 2014, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
That does not change the fact that I follow Church teaching on the issue.


Sure, the Novus Ordo teaching.
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Stubborn on July 15, 2014, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth
That does not change the fact that I follow Church teaching on the issue.


Sure, the Novus Ordo teaching.


Bingo!
Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 16, 2014, 04:58:10 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth
That does not change the fact that I follow Church teaching on the issue.


Sure, the Novus Ordo teaching.


That is another thing about Feeneyites that belong to the Novus Ordo Church and accept the Novus Ordo "Pope"  The accept their own teaching on the Church and salvation in contradistinction to the Novus Ordo Church they belong to and to the Catholic Church to which they do not belong to.

And they have nothing whatsoever to offer on the topic apart from ad hominems.  

Title: Introduction to The Catholic Church and Salvation
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 16, 2014, 05:55:49 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I have not noticed the Feeneyites being capable of making such distinctions.  If I didn't mention the error you probably would not have noticed it.


As I said, I called you out on this several times before you made your retraction.  It is we who understand "such distinctions", while you Cushingites clearly do not.  I had to call out Don Paolo about 50 times on the same issue.


I either don't read you or don't lay weight onto anything you say because you are not a reliable source.  I learned the distinction from Fenton because he is a reliable source.  You cannot know where I learned the distinction from but can only call me a liar, seven times now, since you cannot refute the Catholic doctrine I present.

Why do you fight over petty things that you cannot be sure of such as the inner workings of my mind when I am sure of the contrary to what you claim?

Are you going to insist that I am liar for an eighth time or are you going to let it drop?

Certa bonum certamen fidei.