[Exurge]

I have followed this forum for some time and these threads just will never disappear it seems.

The same objections and the same things said over, and over, and OVER AGAIN, as if it were the first time.

Seriously, how many here are grown-ups? How much time do all you waste going back and forth with this nonsense? Have you made the math of how much time you waste writing the same thing over and over again? Only to start all over again? And then some?

It's really something to behold.

That being said, the Dimond boys are clearly raving obsessed lunatics with this BOD/BOB stuff. The poor fellows are just nuts. They have deemed it their duty to "crush" this "heresy", they really are worse than anyone. I was once deceived by their buffoonery, the very frst time i discovered BOD/BOB, because i had never read anything else. What Ruby wrote exposing their "Treatise" should really be enough to see how deranged they are, although I believe he shouldn't have bothered calling them "Brothers" or by their supposed "religious names"; he should've called them Fred and Bob Dimond.

[Stubborn]

If you don't like these threads, don't waste your time reading them and certainly don't waste your time participating in them.

Personally, I think I may have read a whole 2 pages of writings from the dimond fools my whole life, I know enough about them to know they are dishonest to say the least, yet,  they are correct that the mythical non sacrament, a BOD, cannot save anyone.

[Ladislaus]

I think that we've all noticed the same thing.  For the most part, the arguments and counter-arguments are well known and well established.  BoD probably needs its own subforum, and then each thread should be limited to a narrow topic.  Otherwise, every single BoD thread expands to 34 pages and hits every single BoD related topic.  Same thing happens with the Sedevacantism-related threads.

With that said, BoD/BoB or, rather, EENS is THE theological issue of this crisis.  If we want to be Traditional Catholics, we really need to come to terms with this issue.  Every error in Vatican II comes from the new ecclesiology invented to undermine EENS.  When you have a dogmatic definition that there's no salvation outside the Church, you need to start tinkering with what it means to be outside and inside the Church in order to undermine the dogma.  And the enemies of the Church knew that in order to undermine the Church they absolutely had to undermine EENS.

Also, it's important because if there's any substantial error in Vatican II, it's related to EENS.  If I believed about EENS what a lot of people here on CI believe, I would have no choice but to say that Vatican II does not contain any substantial error.  Being a Traditional Catholic all depends on EENS.  Whether Vatican II was substantially erroneous (thus the SSPX vs. Resistance), thus FFSP vs. SSPX, thus sedevacantism (since the purported "heresies" of all the V2 Popes involve rejection of EENS, a new ecclesiology, a new soteriology).  EENS is everything, and we absolutely need to come to terms with it in order to be in good conscience about being Traditional Catholics.  There's no more important issue.

[Exurge]

I think that we've all noticed the same thing.  For the most part, the arguments and counter-arguments are well known and well established.  BoD probably needs its own subforum, and then each thread should be limited to a narrow topic.  Otherwise, every single BoD thread expands to 34 pages and hits every single BoD related topic.  Same thing happens with the Sedevacantism-related threads.

With that said, BoD/BoB or, rather, EENS is THE theological issue of this crisis.  If we want to be Traditional Catholics, we really need to come to terms with this issue.  Every error in Vatican II comes from the new ecclesiology invented to undermine EENS.  When you have a dogmatic definition that there's no salvation outside the Church, you need to start tinkering with what it means to be outside and inside the Church in order to undermine the dogma.  And the enemies of the Church knew that in order to undermine the Church they absolutely had to undermine EENS.

Also, it's important because if there's any substantial error in Vatican II, it's related to EENS.  If I believed about EENS what a lot of people here on CI believe, I would have no choice but to say that Vatican II does not contain any substantial error.  Being a Traditional Catholic all depends on EENS.  Whether Vatican II was substantially erroneous (thus the SSPX vs. Resistance), thus FFSP vs. SSPX, thus sedevacantism (since the purported "heresies" of all the V2 Popes involve rejection of EENS, a new ecclesiology, a new soteriology).  EENS is everything, and we absolutely need to come to terms with it in order to be in good conscience about being Traditional Catholics.  There's no more important issue.

How does believing that those in invincible ignorance might be saved if they fulfill some other conditions compare to the Vatican 2 Superchurch heresy where heretics and schismatics who KNOW about the Catholic Church and are not in invincible ignorance are somehow still united to and part of Her? How does that compare to going ahead and saying that heretical and schismatic sects are means of salvation? That we should have some form of communicatio in sacris?

What's more, i think Vatican 2 and subsequent papers even go so far as to say that all these heretics and schismatics are MEMBERS of the Church of Christ, and the whole invincible ignorance deal always says they are not members but just united in desire.

Not to mention the fact that now they positively say you should NOT and do NOT need to convert to Catholicism.

[Ambrose]

I have followed this forum for some time and these threads just will never disappear it seems.

The same objections and the same things said over, and over, and OVER AGAIN, as if it were the first time.

Seriously, how many here are grown-ups? How much time do all you waste going back and forth with this nonsense? Have you made the math of how much time you waste writing the same thing over and over again? Only to start all over again? And then some?

It's really something to behold.

That being said, the Dimond boys are clearly raving obsessed lunatics with this BOD/BOB stuff. The poor fellows are just nuts. They have deemed it their duty to "crush" this "heresy", they really are worse than anyone. I was once deceived by their buffoonery, the very frst time i discovered BOD/BOB, because i had never read anything else. What Ruby wrote exposing their "Treatise" should really be enough to see how deranged they are, although I believe he shouldn't have bothered calling them "Brothers" or by their supposed "religious names"; he should've called them Fred and Bob Dimond.

All of us tire of this, but heresy has always plagued the Church.  This just happens to be one of the most recent heresies along with the modernists.  They all must be resisted by Catholics.  

[Lover of Truth]

IMO they clearly should not be allowed on the forum.  They are a cancerous plague.  The have been refuted up down and sideways.  But they still insist on endanger the faith of others, their own demise not enough for them.

[Cantarella]

If you think the discussion is about BOD/B then you are missing the whole point and not seeing the bigger picture. The discussion is ultimately about EENS.

 Being a Traditional Catholic all depends on EENS.

I would say, being a "Catholic" all depends on EENS. Catholics from all ages always believed that there was not salvation for those outside the Church. It was with this spirit of conviction and a great zeal for souls that the universal expansion on Catholicism was possible. Before Modernism, everyone was in agreement of this, but the modernists twisted words for dogmas to appear something they are not. Nobody can be saved outside of the visible, tangible Church.

The Church is visible because she has a body. The body of Christ. Christ and the Church are one. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen.

The topic of EENS is of major importance. There is no return to "tradition" or the "Faith of the Fathers' until this issue is not resolved. The Church leaders no longer proclaim the very reason for which Christ founded the Church, which was to reveal the "one and only path to salvation". Her most fundamental reason for being.

[bowler]

The clear uncompromising teaching of the doctrine that one must at least believe explicitly in the Incarnation (=Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without at least this doctrine, assented to absolutely, and the condemnation of the opposing view, Traditionalists have no case nor argument against anything in Vatican II. Anyone who says they "don't condemn" the opposite opinion, by the very act, approve it, and thus become like the salt that looses its flavor, neutralized, precisely where the enemies of the Church want them to be neutralized.

But whoever dares to say: “Outside the Church is no salvation”, ought to be driven from the State
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book IV, Ch. 8

( http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/rousseau/social-contract/ )

The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

This is why I have always held that the opinion that the existence of God as rewarder cannot suffice for supernatural faith.  Vatican I here finishes off holding to that opinion once and for all.

It confirms the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, it was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was clearly infallible decreed at the Council of Florence:


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”



Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
 3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
 42. and shall give account of their own works.
 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.  


St. Thomas Aquinas:

 St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

 Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

[Ladislaus]

I would say, being a "Catholic" all depends on EENS.

You know that I agree.  I just meant that if the people on CI persist in their belief that non Catholics can be saved, then they need to embrace Vatican II because it teaches the same things that they themselves believe.

[Lover of Truth]

I would say, being a "Catholic" all depends on EENS.

You know that I agree.  I just meant that if the people on CI persist in their belief that non Catholics can be saved, then they need to embrace Vatican II because it teaches the same things that they themselves believe.

V2 does not teach what the Catholic Church teaches.

It teaches that souls can be saved BY false religions.

The Catholic Church teaches the possibility that a soul can be saved despite claiming a false religion.

Let me know if you don't get the distinction and I will try to break it down even further for you.

[Lover of Truth]

It is about PROPERLY UNDERSTANDING EENS, V2 teaches falsely as do the Feeneyites.

[Cantarella]

It teaches that souls can be saved BY false religions.

The Catholic Church teaches the possibility that a soul can be saved despite claiming a false religion.

Modernist talk right there. Ambiguity! so you actually can be a member from a false religion but then you are saved by last minute miraculous Holy Ghost intervention by the Catholic Church. You can be saved then by being an invisible member of the Church  :rolleyes:

What part of Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus is that is so difficult to understand?

Dogmatic statements say what they mean and mean what they say.

Modernists will, at least in public, affirm the words of the defined dogmas. However, they will teach a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.

What it is so difficult to understand and why not to firmly believe in this dogmatic statement also:

"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).

[Lover of Truth]

It teaches that souls can be saved BY false religions.

The Catholic Church teaches the possibility that a soul can be saved despite claiming a false religion.

Modernist talk right there. Ambiguity! so you actually can be a member from a false religion but then you are saved by last minute miraculous Holy Ghost intervention by the Catholic Church. You can be saved then by being an invisible member of the Church  :rolleyes:

What part of Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus is that is so difficult to understand?

Dogmatic statements say what they mean and mean what they say.

Modernists will, at least in public, affirm the words of the defined dogmas. However, they will teach a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.

What it is so difficult to understand and why not to firmly believe in this dogmatic statement also:

"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).

What you say would be true were it not false.

The Church makes distinctions whereas on this issue you do not.  

[Lover of Truth]

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

    Look closely at this paragraph immediately above and one sees two basic parts, the first that teaches that "all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives" (in other words, dealing with those who are outside the Church, and the second, "that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," which deals with those who are inside the Church. Notice that it is clearly referring to the second part (those inside the Church) when it uses the word "persevered" to specify what they must do. To sacrifice all and give any manner of alms etc. but then fail to persevere within the Church is to be in that category in which "nobody can be saved." Only the first part of this paragraph pertains to those who are outside the Church (and hence required to seek baptism), and the only condition it places upon them is to be "joined to the Church before the end of their lives." Since this does not in any manner address what it takes to be "joined to the Church" it in no way excludes whatever means God may elect to use in some specific case where water baptism was not obtainable but nevertheless sought.

[Exurge]

   Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

    Look closely at this paragraph immediately above and one sees two basic parts, the first that teaches that "all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives" (in other words, dealing with those who are outside the Church, and the second, "that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," which deals with those who are inside the Church. Notice that it is clearly referring to the second part (those inside the Church) when it uses the word "persevered" to specify what they must do. To sacrifice all and give any manner of alms etc. but then fail to persevere within the Church is to be in that category in which "nobody can be saved." Only the first part of this paragraph pertains to those who are outside the Church (and hence required to seek baptism), and the only condition it places upon them is to be "joined to the Church before the end of their lives." Since this does not in any manner address what it takes to be "joined to the Church" it in no way excludes whatever means God may elect to use in some specific case where water baptism was not obtainable but nevertheless sought.

Do you agree with Lefebvre's statement that souls can be saved in any religion but not by the religion?