Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Alcuin on January 18, 2014, 03:38:25 AM
-
As for your view that the present crisis is a result of the denial of the dogma that there isn't any salvation outside the Church, you are entitled to it, but I think that it is wrong. You learned that idea from Fr. Feeney or his disciples, I suppose. It was his great "discovery" back in the 1940s. But the truth, it seems to me, is that the real cause of the crisis (if we are to identify a particular doctrinal complex at its heart) is the misrepresentation of the nature of the Church. Ironically, you and all other Feeneyites actually contribute to this by misdefining the boundaries of the Church, misdefining the concepts "inside" and "outside" contrary to Tradition, and thus you add to the chaos of our time. I suppose this unwitting contribution to the crisis is apt punishment for your refusal to sit at the feet of the men that Holy Mother Church, guided by the loving Providence of Almighty God, has placed before you as your teachers. That is, the Doctors of the Church.
-
No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.
-
Him saying basically that teaching EENS is a part of the problem amazes me as much as when +Sanborn said there is salvation outside the Church in his debate with Fastiggi.
This definitely applies for Lane - and to all trads who think salvation is even remotely possible outside the Church:
...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it.
Yes, of course,they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation. If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
-
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.
Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.
-
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.
Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.
Here's an example:
Many years ago, I was dragged by a girlfriend to see an art exhibit in Chicago. It was a one artist exhibit. I paid to go in, and upon entering I was immediately struck by the sight of the exhibit, my eyes panned around the entire room and my jaw dropped. As we walked through the exhibit I saw the people commenting on the "paintings" and what they meant. I just walked in silence and listened to everyone talking admiringly about the paintings and the painter. Here's the catch: ALL the paintings had no color, they were ALL white!!!! They were basically trowelled stucco angles on a canvas. An entire exhibit of white troweled shapes on canvas! Now, those people talking admiringly about the paintings and the painter, THAT IS the type of person that falls for the Karl Rahners, Garrigou-Lagranges, Fentons, and makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't put together.
-
0
-
No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.
The Church never lost its "exclusive product." This is what the Feeneyites pretend. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and that of the Holy Office in 1949 were only reinforcing the dogma, "outside the Church, no salvation."
John Lane is correct, the main threat has never been to EENS, Vatican II has been a direct attack against the nature of the Church. Vatican II makes EENS meaningless, as the Church is no longer an Ark with those inside and those outside.
Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.
The difference between the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him is that they clearly taught the exclusivity of the Church. Baptism of Desire does not contradict with the nature and exclusivity of the Church. It is invisible, and those in this category are known only to God. The Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, all other religions are false and a means of damnation.
-
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.
Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.
It's still often strikes me as phenomenal that the dogma is obliterated by men who are otherwise supposed to have some smarts.
And I'm not talking about NOers or those who still suffer from their years of indoctrination and embracing the NO like LoT and presumably Ambrose and SJB - I'm talking about people like Lane and +Sanborn who are beating the wind with any argument they have against the NO, anti-popes, new mass, belonging to the Church and etc. because far as they're concerned, belonging to the Church means everyone who follows the dictates of their conscience makes them members of the Church by desire anyway - by that thinking, many are saved and few if any are lost.
If they only stop for just 3 short seconds out of their whole day to consider that if there is salvation outside the Church then there is no need to be concerned about if the pope is the pope or the Mass is the Mass or if heresy is heresy or anything that has anything to do with faithfully preaching and adhering to the dogma.
It's madness on their part because they remain willfully blind to the fact that "If they qualify it [the dogma] in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
-
No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.
The Church never lost its "exclusive product." This is what the Feeneyites pretend. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and that of the Holy Office in 1949 were only reinforcing the dogma, "outside the Church, no salvation."
John Lane is correct, the main threat has never been to EENS, Vatican II has been a direct attack against the nature of the Church. Vatican II makes EENS meaningless, as the Church is no longer an Ark with those inside and those outside.
Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.
The difference between the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him is that they clearly taught the exclusivity of the Church. Baptism of Desire does not contradict with the nature and exclusivity of the Church. It is invisible, and those in this category are known only to God. The Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, all other religions are false and a means of damnation.
In your world, aside from Trads and those who profess EENS, who else is outside of the Church through no fault of their own?
-
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.
Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.
It's still often strikes me as phenomenal that the dogma is obliterated by men who are otherwise supposed to have some smarts.
And I'm not talking about NOers or those who still suffer from their years of indoctrination and embracing the NO like LoT and presumably Ambrose and SJB - I'm talking about people like Lane and +Sanborn who are beating the wind with any argument they have against the NO, anti-popes, new mass, belonging to the Church and etc. because far as they're concerned, belonging to the Church means everyone who follows the dictates of their conscience makes them members of the Church by desire anyway - by that thinking, many are saved and few if any are lost.
If they only stop for just 3 short seconds out of their whole day to consider that if there is salvation outside the Church then there is no need to be concerned about if the pope is the pope or the Mass is the Mass or if heresy is heresy or anything that has anything to do with faithfully preaching and adhering to the dogma.
It's madness on their part because they remain willfully blind to the fact that "If they qualify it [the dogma] in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
From your posts here, it is certain that you do not have an engineer's mind.
Also, you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
-
Why can't it be both?
-
Sorry, but Lane doesn't know what he's talking about. Soteriology and Ecclesiology are basically inseparable.
-
No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.
The Church never lost its "exclusive product." This is what the Feeneyites pretend. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and that of the Holy Office in 1949 were only reinforcing the dogma, "outside the Church, no salvation."
John Lane is correct, the main threat has never been to EENS, Vatican II has been a direct attack against the nature of the Church. Vatican II makes EENS meaningless, as the Church is no longer an Ark with those inside and those outside.
Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.
The difference between the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him is that they clearly taught the exclusivity of the Church. Baptism of Desire does not contradict with the nature and exclusivity of the Church. It is invisible, and those in this category are known only to God. The Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, all other religions are false and a means of damnation.
In your world, aside from Trads and those who profess EENS, who else is outside of the Church through no fault of their own?
When did I say "trads" and those who profess EENS are outside the Church? If I believed that believing in EENS made one outside the Church, then I would have to believe that of myself, as I have constantly believed and defended this truth.
Your question is absurd.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Do you ever answer a question without another question?
-
Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.
I would like to suggest an alteration to your onion. I think that according to the actions of the Vatican II sect, they believe the "Jews" are the closest.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Do you ever answer a question without another question?
The implication of why I asked you the question should be obvious. Pope Pius XII brilliantly and clearly answered this question in the encyclical. If you have read the encyclical, the matter should be clear.
-
Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.
I would like to suggest an alteration to your onion. I think that according to the actions of the Vatican II sect, they believe the "Jews" are the closest.
You may be right that some think this, but in their official docuмents and works of post Vatican II theologians, the schismatics are closer, as they have the agreement in Faith and valid sacraments.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Yes, in particular para.30:
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.
37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.
38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.
Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.
The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.
-
When the novus ordo publicly denied Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that is the cause of this crisis.
When did they do that, you ask? Simple. When they declared other religions as having salvific nature and when the popes (you know which ones) publicly expressed their belief that Jews do not need to convert to be saved.
However, I think Fr. Feeney was WAY WAY WAY ahead of the curve on this issue because denying any portion of EENS is just like saying Our Lord was just using dramatic hyperbole when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light and that no one comes to the Father except thru Him.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Yes, in particular para.30:
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.
37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.
38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.
Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.
The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.
And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.
The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Yes, in particular para.30:
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.
37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.
38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.
Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.
The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.
And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.
The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001
The Church is a body, it is a visible society of those who are baptized and profess the true Faith. Only those who meet this definition are members.
-
Bellarmine's teaching on visibility, the basis for The teaching in Mystici Corporis, also states that occult or secret heretics are still members, joined by external union only, while catechumens are not members yet joined by internal union.
Mystici Corporis was correcting those who wrongly imagined a church with an invisible membership. This was later deviously exploited by the super-intelligent modernists, and misunderstood by the idiots who do their own theology and are simply looking for some proof texts for their own self-taught theories.
-
It is all Father Feeney's fault! The whole of it!... How could I have missed that!
The Novus Ordoites have been right all along......everyone can be saved by the Catholic Church.... no money down and no payments forever.......
Where have we foolish rigorists been all this time???
-
It is all Father Feeney's fault! The whole of it!... How could I have missed that!
The Novus Ordoites have been right all along......everyone can be saved by the Catholic Church.... no money down and no payments forever.......
Where have we foolish rigorists been all this time???
In the 1940's and 50's there was no Novus Ordo. There was Pope Pius XII ruling the Church, and he through the Holy Office taught the Saint Benedict Center what they needed to believe. They refused, and to this day, the movement of rejecting the teaching of the Church continues.
The Feeneyites are expert propagandists, and are good at portraying the teaching of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII inaccurately. Some heretics swing to laxism, others such as the Calvinists, Jansenists and Feeneyites swing to rigorism.
-
It is all Father Feeney's fault! The whole of it!... How could I have missed that!
The Novus Ordoites have been right all along......everyone can be saved by the Catholic Church.... no money down and no payments forever.......
Where have we foolish rigorists been all this time???
Nobody said it was Fr. Feeney's fault nor have I ever said this. Fr. Feeney was absolutely correct about exposing what the liberals were saying and teaching, which in many cases was heretical. I think Cushing was just a good politician, and exposed the weakness of Feeney, which were his erroneous ideas that were corrected by the Holy Office. Cushing and the liberals were devious, and as true liberals, they pretended they were not being corrected by the Holy Office, when in fact they were. Cushing was a Bishop, so he obviously had the upper hand on Feeney as a simple priest.
-
It is all Father Feeney's fault! The whole of it!... How could I have missed that!
The Novus Ordoites have been right all along......everyone can be saved by the Catholic Church.... no money down and no payments forever.......
Where have we foolish rigorists been all this time???
In the 1940's and 50's there was no Novus Ordo. There was Pope Pius XII ruling the Church, ...
Yeah, right, and Bugnini did not exist till the 1960's, and all the bishops turned progressivists in 1963.
-
It is all Father Feeney's fault! The whole of it!... How could I have missed that!
The Novus Ordoites have been right all along......everyone can be saved by the Catholic Church.... no money down and no payments forever.......
Where have we foolish rigorists been all this time???
In the 1940's and 50's there was no Novus Ordo. There was Pope Pius XII ruling the Church, ...
Yeah, right, and Bugnini did not exist till the 1960's, and all the bishops turned progressivists in 1963.
Was Bugnini Pope in the 50's? Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Why is it that so many exalt Bugnini and make him into this all powerful boogeyman? He was a nobody underling in the 50's. His importance grew when the antipope Paul VI allowed heresy and evil to run wild.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Yes, in particular para.30:
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.
37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.
38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.
Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.
The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.
And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.
The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001
The Church is a body, it is a visible society of those who are baptized and profess the true Faith. Only those who meet this definition are members.
Yes, the Church is a body and only her members are parts of it. There's no other way of being inside the Church. If there is then the concept of a body is found wanting as Ratzinger pointed out.
-
.
This is a very good post:
Him saying basically that teaching EENS is a part of the problem amazes me as much as when +Sanborn said there is salvation outside the Church in his debate with Fastiggi.
This definitely applies for Lane - and to all trads who think salvation is even remotely possible outside the Church:
...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it.
Yes, of course,they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation.
If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
And this is a very good reply:
When the novus ordo publicly denied Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that is the cause of this crisis.
When did they do that, you ask? Simple. When they declared other religions as having salvific nature and when the popes (you know which ones) publicly expressed their belief that Jews do not need to convert to be saved.
However, I think Fr. Feeney was WAY WAY WAY ahead of the curve on this issue because denying any portion of EENS is just like saying Our Lord was just using dramatic hyperbole when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light and that no one comes to the Father except thru Him.
I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but through me.
-- But doesn't someone come through Jesus by some vague longing even though he has never heard the Gospel, but has miraculously achieved perfect contrition and informed by charity, even though he has never heard contrition preached or charity explained?
-- But the truth is relative! Albert Einstein proved that with college algebra.
-- Certainly "the way" can have two lanes, or perhaps a detour or two!
-- Jesus is "the light," to be sure, and what then is enlightenment of the Tibetan masters? Didn't Jesus travel to the Himalayas in his early twenties?
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you... For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed... If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever... The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.
-- But, wasn't Our Lord speaking figuratively? I mean, come ON! How are we supposed to believe THAT, literally?
-- Doesn't he really mean that he is the WORD of God, and what he SAYS is our Bread, because he said elsewhere that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
-- Surely he does not mean we must drink his blood! What does he think we are, vampires? Chupacavras?
-- He didn't say, Except you eat the LITERAL flesh of the Son of man and LITERALLY drink his blood, did he?
-- Now how can the ignorant noble native on a desert island eat this bread and drink this blood when he has never heard of it or seen it or imagined it? Certainly God is not OPPOSED to the ignorant noble natives of the world!!
-- How can one man ABIDE inside another, unless this is like when he says that we must be BORN AGAIN, and so return into the womb of our mothers to abide there and be born another time!
-- &c.
.
-
"The Traditional Dominicans in France ~ Interview with Father Pierre Marie, Prior of Dominican Community in Avrille."
CFN March 2013 (I typed a summary and pressed the wrong key and my post was erased.)
In this interview Fr. explains how the Council adopted the errors of the French Revolution, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," giving them ecclesiastical camoflage: religious liberty, collegiality, ecuмenism.
Fr. goes on to identify the Council docuмents that contain these errors and contrasts them with the pre-Vat.II doctrine of the Church that condemns the same errors!
When John Lane quips that the present crisis is NOT due to anyone's denial of EENS (as if there is no one doing so!!!), but rather ONLY due to someone's (notice he can't bother to say WHOSE) "misrepresentation of the nature of the Church," he makes the mistake of trying to distinguish between two aspects of the same cause.
While he says that denial of EENS is not a cause, but misrepresentation of the nature of the Church is the only cause, he fails to see that the latter is a subset of the former. That is, you cannot have a misrepresentation of the nature of the Church without also having a denial of the doctrine EENS.
Certainly Vat.II misrepresents the nature of the Church, such as in SC 8 where it says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. But that's not the only cause of the crisis, because it is one of the three major divisions of error, namely that of ecuмenism.
There is more to the crisis than merely a misrepresentation of the nature of the Church, as if that isn't bad enough. This is indeed a monster, but it's a monster with at least three heads!
False ecuмenism is only one category. There is also religious liberty and false collegiality.
And these things are not altogether free of touching on the misrepresentation of the Church. The power and infallibility of the Pope in his condemnation of error is inherent in false collegiality, but John Lane's "misrepresentation of the nature of the Church" makes no specific reference to that. He's probably afraid he might offend someone on his side! What's that called? False ecuмenism? Here he is saying false ecuмenism has caused the crisis, and there he goes, practicing false ecuмenism himself, practically in the same breath!
Does he deny that the abandonment of papal condemnation of error since October 11th, 1962 has been one of the causes of the current crisis in the Church? While the suspension of this power of the Keys has played a major role in the crisis, it can hardly be said that "misrepresentation of the nature of the Church" describes this suspension of this power.
But he doesn't leave it there. No, Lane has the myopic temerity to blame Fr. Feeney and his followers for all the problems of Vat.II, as if he (and they!) were the CAUSE of the crisis, and the crisis is God's way of punishing them for being so malicious as to come out in defense of the thrice-defined dogma, "outside the Church there is no salvation." Now how's that for 'creative' thinking?!?!
Perhaps his next wacko theory will be that the priests and Faithful of the Resistance are being PUNISHED for their whistle-blowing by the crisis in the SSPX, but the crisis itself isn't caused by the things the Resistance claims it is, oh, no!
It's caused by a misrepresentation of the nature of the Society of St. Pius X! Of course, not a word about WHO is doing the 'misrepresentation'!
.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.
Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.
Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.
Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?
-
As for your view that the present crisis is a result of the denial of the dogma that there isn't any salvation outside the Church, you are entitled to it, but I think that it is wrong. You learned that idea from Fr. Feeney or his disciples, I suppose. It was his great "discovery" back in the 1940s. But the truth, it seems to me, is that the real cause of the crisis (if we are to identify a particular doctrinal complex at its heart) is the misrepresentation of the nature of the Church. Ironically, you and all other Feeneyites actually contribute to this by misdefining the boundaries of the Church, misdefining the concepts "inside" and "outside" contrary to Tradition, and thus you add to the chaos of our time. I suppose this unwitting contribution to the crisis is apt punishment for your refusal to sit at the feet of the men that Holy Mother Church, guided by the loving Providence of Almighty God, has placed before you as your teachers. That is, the Doctors of the Church.
This statement seems to be off the the mark from the word go.
Isn't the denial of the Dogma EENS "a misrepresentation of the nature of the Church" in itself? Back to the drawing board, Mr. Lane.
Truth be told I think this dogma that is denied is a very big problem. But I don't fret over it, nor do I think I have to defend it and get into the nitty gritty. What is good enough for me is that Father Feeney taught the Faith like no one else. His biggest problem was that he was converting Brahmin elites from Harvard University.
The last think I will say is that water is pretty much everywhere. It's not some kind of rare substance like gold or uranium. My take is simple, if you desire to be baptized, God will supply the water. In that same vein, is it really necessary to pick on the Feeneyites because they suggest everyone ought to be baptized? It's a good idea, is it not?
Most would say that it is a first step. Why the resistance if the suggestion comes from the St. Benedict Center?
No need to over think this, Folks.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.
Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.
Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?
Pope Pius XII could not be considered an anti-Pope without really straining all constraints but it is not unreasonable to conclude that he did do more harm than good. In fact, I think the historical record makes that conclusion to be a solid one.
Now, back on topic....
(1) EENS is dogma,
(2) Our Lord said that unless one was born with water and the Holy Ghost, then one could not enter into Heaven.
Like Thurifer said, let's not over think this. It is wisely straightforward.
The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.
Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.
Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?
Pope Pius XII could not be considered an anti-Pope without really straining all constraints but it is not unreasonable to conclude that he did do more harm than good. In fact, I think the historical record makes that conclusion to be a solid one.
Now, back on topic....
(1) EENS is dogma,
(2) Our Lord said that unless one was born with water and the Holy Ghost, then one could not enter into Heaven.
Like Thurifer said, let's not over think this. It is wisely straightforward.
The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.
Captain,
No one is trying to end run EENS. Baptism of Desire is also a dogma of the Faith and must equally be believed.
-
The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.
Thank you. That's been the point of my last few posts. If I am asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, my answer and my thinking on the subject is an unequivocal "No." As Our Lord taught, let our speech be "Yes. Yes. No. No." Any further prevarication is from the devil.
I teach my children that only Catholics can go to heaven. Period. I don't teach them about the bzillion possible exceptions regarding baptism of this, that, or the other thing. They have no relevance to anything. These speculations do NOTHING but harm belief in EENS and lead to religious indifferentism and Vatican II ecclesiology.
Period. Simple Catholics in reading a dogmatic definition that there's "absolutely no salvation outside the Church" are not expected to regurgitate five paragraphs of "explanation" which essentially turns the dogma into nothing and a laughing-stock to non-Catholics. Whenever I am asked whether Protestants can be saved, I simply answer "No, they cannot ... not unless they convert first to the Catholic faith."
-
Baptism of Desire is also a dogma of the Faith and must equally be believed.
Bovine Excrement, Ambrose.
1) there's never been any dogmatic definition of BoD
2) it cannot be shown that BoD is either unanimously taught by the Church Fathers or derives from other Church dogma implicitly by way of syllogism (requirements for something being a dogma)
Consequently, BoD CAN NEVER BE DEFINED as dogma, even if the Church has tolerated the opinion (rooted as it is in nothing but speculative theology based on emotional reasoning).
-
Captain,
No one is trying to end run EENS. Baptism of Desire is also a dogma of the Faith and must equally be believed.
Except that now the modernists want to make membership in the Church, something vague, abstract, and invisible. Typical liberal modernist mindset where there is no absolute truths but everything is relative. As a result, those in false religions can also be saved! An absurdity that is in direct opposition to what it has been infallibly defined throughout the centuries: The Catholic dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
THE INFALLIBLE DOGMA OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).
The implications of these pronouncements, taken together, are as follows:
1. All three of these statements are ex cathedra definitions of the Church and of the Pontiffs who made them. (Ex cathedra means that these are infallible teachings of the Church which all persons must believe in order to be saved. These teachings are not subject to change as the popes in making these declarations of faith were guided by the Holy Ghost, Who is unchangeable.)
2. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labeled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they know not what.
3. Since the aforementioned formula (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) is a doctrine of Catholicity, it is the standard of orthodoxy on the subject of salvation; which is to say, all writers, whether they be saints and/or Doctors, of old or of late, all popes and theologians, of whatever era, and their pronouncements are reliable in their treatment of this subject, if they accept and support it. Their testimony or opinions are useless (at best), if they do not, this regardless of any other contribution they may have made to Catholic erudition. The same must be said of the works of all Catholic writers.
4. Such a dogmatic statement is not to be colored, or reduced, or altered, by reference to the Sacred Scriptures. On the contrary, it is in terms of such a statement that all the Scriptures are to be read and understood.
5. The doctrine determines who has good will and who has bad will. Those who have bad will are in the state of sin. In rejecting God's accredited word and work, they reveal their true selves: They choose not to be among those of whom Christ spoke when he said: "I know mine, and mine know me." (Jn. 10:14). When it is responded that certain individuals do not know that what they are hearing is God's word, the reply is: What is being said demands that careful inquiry be made. If the inquiry is made with the disposition of humility, integrity, and courage, the inquirer will find that the word cannot be denied. No argument or evidence has ever been discovered which will leave the honest man free of the revealed word's imperative.
6. It is important that the reader who thinks he disagrees with the literal reading of these decrees not throw his hands up in indignation and put this paper aside. It should be obvious that the reason Catholics regard heresy with such horror and alarm is this very doctrine. For if there is salvation outside the Church, what difference does it make whether one is in the Church or out of It, whether one is a heretic in the judgment of the Church or not? Really, if to deny this doctrine is not heresy, there is no such thing as heresy, and it would have been pointless, as well as illogical, for the Church to attach such severe censures to the denial of this or any other doctrine.
7. This dogma rules out the possibility of simple invincible ignorance concerning the matter of salvation; those who die in ignorance of the Church as the only course of salvific grace must be adjudged to have been culpably so. In a word, they did not know because they did not want to know.
From http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/execnusa.shtml
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
From another thread where Ambrose is also bringing up the same identical subject of Pius XII and Fr. Feeney:
Their duty was not to call into question the approved catechisms of the Church or cause Catholics to doubt the constant teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire and Blood. Their duty was not to set up a compound in Still River, MA outside of the jurisdiction of the local ordinary.
Their actions were scandalous and the Holy Office noticed it: they were harming souls inside and outside of the Church.
That's just your opinion. This is one of those subjects that any idiot can chime in on and discuss forever, for it requires no education or study. It has nothing to do with EENS, it just gives no nothings end runners like yourself a chance to feel good about "contributing evidence" and avoiding the real threads on the subject like the threads:
- Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written
- Justification by BOD and Being Born Again
- St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard
-
The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.
There's no point in praying for a soul that is lost, and it could be a source of real scandal. If a person must die as a formal member of the Church (baptised, not subject to excommunication, not separated by heresy or schism), then you cannot pray for them as they are certain to be lost.
So why do you suggest this?
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Yes, in particular para.30:
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.
37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.
38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.
Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.
The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.
And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.
The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001
The Church is a body, it is a visible society of those who are baptized and profess the true Faith. Only those who meet this definition are members.
Yes, the Church is a body and only her members are parts of it. There's no other way of being inside the Church. If there is then the concept of a body is found wanting as Ratzinger pointed out.
Therefore non-members are outside the Church.
-
The classic example of those who are saved as non-members while being internally united are the Gentile just in the age before Christ, non-members of Israel (which prefigured the Church) but internally united to Her. St. Augustine and other Fathers teach this expressly.
Both MCC and the Holy Office Letter clearly indicate those "by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" are inside the Church and that grace interiorly moves them, since the Pope asks "each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace" though desire does not give the assurance that sins have been forgiven, "that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation". How do you explain, Alcuin, how those who are related to the Mystical body only by desire can have an interior movement of grace, if they are not in the state of grace? And if they are in the state of grace, how can they be outside the Church?
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Yes, in particular para.30:
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.
37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.
38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.
Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.
The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.
And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.
The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001
The Church is a body, it is a visible society of those who are baptized and profess the true Faith. Only those who meet this definition are members.
Yes, the Church is a body and only her members are parts of it. There's no other way of being inside the Church. If there is then the concept of a body is found wanting as Ratzinger pointed out.
Therefore non-members are outside the Church.
No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.
-
III. Infidels, to whom the faith was never preached, are not left without sufficient grace to secure the salvation of their souls. Luther does not hesitate to sentence all infidels Gentiles, Turks, and Jews to eternal hell-fire; and Jansenius is not much more lenient. But the Catholic Church condemned their doctrines. Thus Alexander VIII condemned the proposition: "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind, receive no influence what- ever from Christ; hence their will is entirely bare and unarmed, and entirely without sufficient grace " (see also the propositions 26, 27, and 29, condemned by Clement XI.). Pius IX. sums up the teaching of the Church on this point in his Encyclical of August 10, 1863, to the Italian bishops: "It is known to us and to you that they who labour under invincible ignorance of our holy religion, and yet diligently keep the natural law and its precepts written by God in the hearts of all, and are ready to obey God and to lead an honest and righteous life, are enabled by the power of Divine light and grace to obtain eternal life. For God, who plainly beholds, examines and knows the minds and hearts, the thoughts and habits of all, in His sovereign goodness and clemency will not allow that any one suffer eternal punishment who is without the guilt of a wilful sin." The teaching of the Popes is not less in accordance with Scripture than with reason. Christ is the Light of the world that enlightens "all men," and God wills that "all men come into the knowledge of truth" (i Tim. ii. 4). See §45.
The ways by which grace reaches the soul of the infidel are known to God alone. St. Thomas (De Veritate, q. 14, a.11, ad. 1) 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. As we live in the supernatural order, we may well hold with Ripalda that every effort to do good proceeding from human nature is accompanied and assisted by some supernatural grace, and thus works for salvation.
CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF PASCHASIUS QUESNEL
UNIGENITUS (Section 3)
Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713.
26. No graces are granted except through faith.
27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.
28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner is the remission of sin.
29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.
Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.
Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?
Yes, I think it is probably that Pope Pius XII did more harm than good.
-
The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.
There's no point in praying for a soul that is lost, and it could be a source of real scandal. If a person must die as a formal member of the Church (baptised, not subject to excommunication, not separated by heresy or schism), then you cannot pray for them as they are certain to be lost.
So why do you suggest this?
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
We don't know if those souls are lost. It is our job to pray for the dead.
-
.
This is a very good post:
Him saying basically that teaching EENS is a part of the problem amazes me as much as when +Sanborn said there is salvation outside the Church in his debate with Fastiggi.
This definitely applies for Lane - and to all trads who think salvation is even remotely possible outside the Church:
...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it.
Yes, of course,they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation.
If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
And this is a very good reply:
When the novus ordo publicly denied Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that is the cause of this crisis.
When did they do that, you ask? Simple. When they declared other religions as having salvific nature and when the popes (you know which ones) publicly expressed their belief that Jews do not need to convert to be saved.
However, I think Fr. Feeney was WAY WAY WAY ahead of the curve on this issue because denying any portion of EENS is just like saying Our Lord was just using dramatic hyperbole when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light and that no one comes to the Father except thru Him.
I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but through me.
-- But doesn't someone come through Jesus by some vague longing even though he has never heard the Gospel, but has miraculously achieved perfect contrition and informed by charity, even though he has never heard contrition preached or charity explained?
-- But the truth is relative! Albert Einstein proved that with college algebra.
-- Certainly "the way" can have two lanes, or perhaps a detour or two!
-- Jesus is "the light," to be sure, and what then is enlightenment of the Tibetan masters? Didn't Jesus travel to the Himalayas in his early twenties?
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you... For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed... If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever... The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.
-- But, wasn't Our Lord speaking figuratively? I mean, come ON! How are we supposed to believe THAT, literally?
-- Doesn't he really mean that he is the WORD of God, and what he SAYS is our Bread, because he said elsewhere that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
-- Surely he does not mean we must drink his blood! What does he think we are, vampires? Chupacavras?
-- He didn't say, Except you eat the LITERAL flesh of the Son of man and LITERALLY drink his blood, did he?
-- Now how can the ignorant noble native on a desert island eat this bread and drink this blood when he has never heard of it or seen it or imagined it? Certainly God is not OPPOSED to the ignorant noble natives of the world!!
-- How can one man ABIDE inside another, unless this is like when he says that we must be BORN AGAIN, and so return into the womb of our mothers to abide there and be born another time!
-- &c.
.
Neil,
In this day and age, when virtually everyone has access to the internet, and the supernatural means have always been at the disposal of Our Lord, I am hard pressed to consider that there are souls out there who are unaware of the gospel.
I think those searching, and if they are worthy, or prayed for, these souls will find the Truth. Not the relative one, but the Eternal One.
-
III. Infidels, to whom the faith was never preached, are not left without sufficient grace to secure the salvation of their souls. Luther does not hesitate to sentence all infidels Gentiles, Turks, and Jews to eternal hell-fire; and Jansenius is not much more lenient. But the Catholic Church condemned their doctrines. Thus Alexander VIII condemned the proposition: "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind, receive no influence what- ever from Christ; hence their will is entirely bare and unarmed, and entirely without sufficient grace " (see also the propositions 26, 27, and 29, condemned by Clement XI.). Pius IX. sums up the teaching of the Church on this point in his Encyclical of August 10, 1863, to the Italian bishops: "It is known to us and to you that they who labour under invincible ignorance of our holy religion, and yet diligently keep the natural law and its precepts written by God in the hearts of all, and are ready to obey God and to lead an honest and righteous life, are enabled by the power of Divine light and grace to obtain eternal life. For God, who plainly beholds, examines and knows the minds and hearts, the thoughts and habits of all, in His sovereign goodness and clemency will not allow that any one suffer eternal punishment who is without the guilt of a wilful sin." The teaching of the Popes is not less in accordance with Scripture than with reason. Christ is the Light of the world that enlightens "all men," and God wills that "all men come into the knowledge of truth" (i Tim. ii. 4). See §45.
The ways by which grace reaches the soul of the infidel are known to God alone. St. Thomas (De Veritate, q. 14, a.11, ad. 1) 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. As we live in the supernatural order, we may well hold with Ripalda that every effort to do good proceeding from human nature is accompanied and assisted by some supernatural grace, and thus works for salvation.
CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF PASCHASIUS QUESNEL
UNIGENITUS (Section 3)
Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713.
26. No graces are granted except through faith.
27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.
28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner is the remission of sin.
29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted.
If you would be so kind as to help me understand;
My understanding is that the Character of baptism is the identifying mark or seal of membership in the Church. I've always thought the greater miracle was the forgiveness of sins and unmerited reward of Heaven and if necessary Providence would provide a minor miracle such as an atypical baptism. With this in mind:
1: Where in these quotes does it say water definitely was never involved in such a one?
2: If it does not explicitly say the above, then what is the progression of reasoning (syllogism) that I can follow to come to the conclusion that water is not necessary to enter the Church.
3: What sort of authority backs up the syllogism?
4: Perhaps there is an authoritative interpretation of the above you could link for me.
Thank you so much for your time and God bless,
JoeZ
-
Also if I may,
I did read the whole thread and as it is an older one I don't believe I have overly hijacked it.
Thanks again,
JoeZ
-
III. Infidels, to whom the faith was never preached, are not left without sufficient grace to secure the salvation of their souls. Luther does not hesitate to sentence all infidels Gentiles, Turks, and Jews to eternal hell-fire; and Jansenius is not much more lenient. But the Catholic Church condemned their doctrines. Thus Alexander VIII condemned the proposition: "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind, receive no influence what- ever from Christ; hence their will is entirely bare and unarmed, and entirely without sufficient grace " (see also the propositions 26, 27, and 29, condemned by Clement XI.). Pius IX. sums up the teaching of the Church on this point in his Encyclical of August 10, 1863, to the Italian bishops: "It is known to us and to you that they who labour under invincible ignorance of our holy religion, and yet diligently keep the natural law and its precepts written by God in the hearts of all, and are ready to obey God and to lead an honest and righteous life, are enabled by the power of Divine light and grace to obtain eternal life. For God, who plainly beholds, examines and knows the minds and hearts, the thoughts and habits of all, in His sovereign goodness and clemency will not allow that any one suffer eternal punishment who is without the guilt of a wilful sin." The teaching of the Popes is not less in accordance with Scripture than with reason. Christ is the Light of the world that enlightens "all men," and God wills that "all men come into the knowledge of truth" (i Tim. ii. 4). See §45.
The ways by which grace reaches the soul of the infidel are known to God alone. St. Thomas (De Veritate, q. 14, a.11, ad. 1) 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. As we live in the supernatural order, we may well hold with Ripalda that every effort to do good proceeding from human nature is accompanied and assisted by some supernatural grace, and thus works for salvation.
CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF PASCHASIUS QUESNEL
UNIGENITUS (Section 3)
Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713.
26. No graces are granted except through faith.
27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.
28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner is the remission of sin.
29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted.
If you would be so kind as to help me understand;
My understanding is that the Character of baptism is the identifying mark or seal of membership in the Church. I've always thought the greater miracle was the forgiveness of sins and unmerited reward of Heaven and if necessary Providence would provide a minor miracle such as an atypical baptism. With this in mind:
1: Where in these quotes does it say water definitely was never involved in such a one?
Good question, but there is no place to be found, nor could there be, because then it would deny Scripture and the infallible canons of the sacred councils, so it would be anathema.
2: If it does not explicitly say the above, then what is the progression of reasoning (syllogism) that I can follow to come to the conclusion that water is not necessary to enter the Church.
There is no progression without an erroneous precept, either expressed or implied, for the same reasons as 1 above.
3: What sort of authority backs up the syllogism?
There is no syllogism so no authority is attached to nothing.
4: Perhaps there is an authoritative interpretation of the above you could link for me.
Thank you so much for your time and God bless,
JoeZ
.
-
.
This is a very good post:
Him saying basically that teaching EENS is a part of the problem amazes me as much as when +Sanborn said there is salvation outside the Church in his debate with Fastiggi.
This definitely applies for Lane - and to all trads who think salvation is even remotely possible outside the Church:
...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it.
Yes, of course,they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation.
If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
And this is a very good reply:
When the novus ordo publicly denied Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that is the cause of this crisis.
When did they do that, you ask? Simple. When they declared other religions as having salvific nature and when the popes (you know which ones) publicly expressed their belief that Jews do not need to convert to be saved.
However, I think Fr. Feeney was WAY WAY WAY ahead of the curve on this issue because denying any portion of EENS is just like saying Our Lord was just using dramatic hyperbole when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light and that no one comes to the Father except thru Him.
I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but through me.
-- But doesn't someone come through Jesus by some vague longing even though he has never heard the Gospel, but has miraculously achieved perfect contrition and informed by charity, even though he has never heard contrition preached or charity explained?
-- But the truth is relative! Albert Einstein proved that with college algebra.
-- Certainly "the way" can have two lanes, or perhaps a detour or two!
-- Jesus is "the light," to be sure, and what then is enlightenment of the Tibetan masters? Didn't Jesus travel to the Himalayas in his early twenties?
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you... For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed... If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever... The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.
-- But, wasn't Our Lord speaking figuratively? I mean, come ON! How are we supposed to believe THAT, literally?
-- Doesn't he really mean that he is the WORD of God, and what he SAYS is our Bread, because he said elsewhere that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
-- Surely he does not mean we must drink his blood! What does he think we are, vampires? Chupacavras?
-- He didn't say, Except you eat the LITERAL flesh of the Son of man and LITERALLY drink his blood, did he?
-- Now how can the ignorant noble native on a desert island eat this bread and drink this blood when he has never heard of it or seen it or imagined it? Certainly God is not OPPOSED to the ignorant noble natives of the world!!
-- How can one man ABIDE inside another, unless this is like when he says that we must be BORN AGAIN, and so return into the womb of our mothers to abide there and be born another time!
-- &c.
.
Neil,
In this day and age, when virtually everyone has access to the internet, and the supernatural means have always been at the disposal of Our Lord, I am hard pressed to consider that there are souls out there who are unaware of the gospel.
I think those searching, and if they are worthy, or prayed for, these souls will find the Truth. Not the relative one, but the Eternal One.
While it's not impossible for such ones to find Eternal Truth, it seems rather unlikely. Although, with the grace of God all things are possible (within the bounds of reason -- regardless of what the hermeneutic of continuity says).
While perhaps most do have access to the Internet, you shouldn't forget that the majority of the world's population is illiterate, so the Internet wouldn't help them since they can't read. They could watch videos okay, but do you suppose an illiterate ignorant noble native of Madagascar or the Svengali would use time on the Internet to learn about the truth of God instead of being entertained with sticoms, cartoons, comix, movies, pornography, smut, snuff films or gaming interlinks? Even educated Americans seek entertainment instead of edification and sanctification.
P.S. the Internet is a proper noun.
.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.
Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.
Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?
The people that think this way against our late beloved Pope Pius XII have allowed themselves to be duped by baseless propaganda.
Pius XII was the obstacle that was preventing the heretics from making their move against the Church. So long as he lived, there was peace in the Church, and the enemies from within were prevented from unleashing their evil schemes.
-
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.
What does membership mean?
Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?
Do you ever answer a question without another question?
Speak for yourself.
-
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.
...to opening the floodgates on evolution,
I bet if he had lived up till now he would have condemned it a long time ago.
...to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts),
Which ones? When? Where?
-
Neil,
In this day and age, when virtually everyone has access to the internet, and the supernatural means have always been at the disposal of Our Lord, I am hard pressed to consider that there are souls out there who are unaware of the gospel.
You mean virtually every civilized nation, has access to the internet. Or maybe you were talking about the USA.
Try going to certain places in Africa and the East.
Even in certain "civilized" countries like 3rd world countries, some people live deep in the woods and in remote areas and even if they have contact with towns, they wouldn't know where to begin to use a computer, much less have money to pay to use one.
There are always countries with people living in very remote areas, and there are still savages in some places, even in the "modern" age we are living in.
-
non-members are outside the Church.
No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.
Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?
What does united mean?
-
Those united to the Church through supernatural faith and charity. These two items have been required at all times and in all places, even prior to the promulgation of the Gospel.
-
Neil,
When was the internet declared a proper noun? Was it in a new edition of the Oxford Dictionary? If so, I missed the event. I do see how it could be seen that way through common use. Hey, at least I didn't call it the "internets" - :wink:
More importantly, it is the job of missionaries to get the word to those who are considered savages. But, it is also the responsibility of those savages to respond. Our Lord told the apostles that those who do not believe are condemned already so if they were told then they were told.
Perhaps Invincible Ignorance does apply to these men in the woods but why do we jump to this conclusion? Why did the Gospel not reach them? Were they spiritually unreachable? Don't these backwoods types notoriously rely on their superstitions? It's so, isn't it? They often engage in animal sacrifices and even human sacrifices so how noble are they really?
I juxtapose that with the parable of the ten virgins. Those five unfortunate virgins remained pure but only forgot to bring enough oil for their lamps. That means they didn't prepare but they did everything else - even doubling the trip. Those five unwise virgins lived pure and died pure but they died unprepared although they did work harder than the five wise virgins. And what response did they receive? We all know.
-
non-members are outside the Church.
No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.
Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?
What does united mean?
People in this condition are in the Church but are not members of the Church. The only door to become a member of the Church is the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no other way.
The way of their uniting to the Church is as SJB described for you.
-
non-members are outside the Church.
No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.
Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?
What does united mean?
People in this condition are in the Church but are not members of the Church. The only door to become a member of the Church is the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no other way.
The way of their uniting to the Church is as SJB described for you.
One can be not part of the Church but inside the Church. Please clarify.
-
non-members are outside the Church.
No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.
Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?
What does united mean?
People in this condition are in the Church but are not members of the Church. The only door to become a member of the Church is the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no other way.
The way of their uniting to the Church is as SJB described for you.
One can be not part of the Church but inside the Church. Please clarify.
Check this out, Alcuin: http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Membership-in-the-Church-by-Dom-Aelred-Graham-OSB-STL
-
non-members are outside the Church.
No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.
Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?
What does united mean?
People in this condition are in the Church but are not members of the Church. The only door to become a member of the Church is the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no other way.
The way of their uniting to the Church is as SJB described for you.
One can be not part of the Church but inside the Church. Please clarify.
The post from Michael93 contains a text which explains the matter clearly and succinctly. My words and explanations are beneath that of the Church's trained and commissioned theologians.
-
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane) believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
-
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane) believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I guess you'll have to include St. Alphonsus in your list:
Book on Preaching, pg. 371:
WHICH ARE THE THINGS THAT WE MUST KNOW AND BELIEVE AS NECESSARY BY NECESSITY OF MEANS, AND OTHERS BY NECESSITY OF PRECEPT?
I. 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. Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles -the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word- is necessary be 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.
II. We are obliged only by necessity of precept, which, however, binds under grievous sin, to know and believe the other articles of the Creed...
Italics in the original.
-
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane) believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I guess you'll have to include St. Alphonsus in your list:
Book on Preaching, pg. 371:
WHICH ARE THE THINGS THAT WE MUST KNOW AND BELIEVE AS NECESSARY BY NECESSITY OF MEANS, AND OTHERS BY NECESSITY OF PRECEPT?
I. 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. Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles -the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word- is necessary be 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.
II. We are obliged only by necessity of precept, which, however, binds under grievous sin, to know and believe the other articles of the Creed...
Italics in the original.
You recently joined CI, and started inquiring about this subject of BOD/BOB/ Implicit faith ect. and now are going around teaching. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about the subject, and your posting a quote which you think shows that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in the contradiction above, just highlights it.
No Father, Doctor, Saint or Council taught the above contradiction. To even suggest such a thing is asinine. The 1st proposition is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and it was enshrined in the ancient Athanasian Creed of the Fathers, and infallible confirmed at the Council of Florence. The second proposition is a direct denial of first.
-
You recently joined CI, and started inquiring about this subject of BOD/BOB/ Implicit faith ect. and now are going around teaching. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about the subject, and your posting a quote which you think shows that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in the contradiction above, just highlights it.
No Father, Doctor, Saint or Council taught the above contradiction. To even suggest such a thing is asinine. The 1st proposition is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and it was enshrined in the ancient Athanasian Creed of the Fathers, and infallible confirmed at the Council of Florence. The second proposition is a direct denial of first.
Exurge is merely repeating authorized teachers, something you never do. You are the one who presumes to teach.
-
Exurge is merely repeating authorized teachers, something you never do. You are the one who presumes to teach.
There's no going back SJB, if Exurge does not know what every theologian knows, that St. Alphonsus Ligouri did not teach your contradiction highlighted below, I am not going to let his ignorance turn this thread into a baby steps session.
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane) believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I guess you'll have to include St. Alphonsus in your list:
Book on Preaching, pg. 371:
WHICH ARE THE THINGS THAT WE MUST KNOW AND BELIEVE AS NECESSARY BY NECESSITY OF MEANS, AND OTHERS BY NECESSITY OF PRECEPT?
I. 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. Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles -the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word- is necessary be 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.
II. We are obliged only by necessity of precept, which, however, binds under grievous sin, to know and believe the other articles of the Creed...
Italics in the original.
You recently joined CI, and started inquiring about this subject of BOD/BOB/ Implicit faith ect. and now are going around teaching. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about the subject, and your posting a quote which you think shows that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in the contradiction above, just highlights it.
No Father, Doctor, Saint or Council taught the above contradiction. To even suggest such a thing is asinine. The 1st proposition is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and it was enshrined in the ancient Athanasian Creed of the Fathers, and infallible confirmed at the Council of Florence. The second proposition is a direct denial of first.