Author Topic: ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation (Read 28565 times)

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #30 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:01:06 AM »

The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:05:45 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: MyrnaM
All those who die in Sanctifying grace are within the Church, extraordinary means of salvation does not mean you are saved outside the Church.

Exactly.

Roman Catholic, instead of looking to MyrnaM as your authoritative infallible source, can you provide the dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church which says someone can be saved through "extraordinary means"(meaning not through the sacraments of the Church)

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:09:41 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?

Didn't Benedict claim that Feeneyism is not heretical and that a Catholic can indeed hold that belief? Also, didn't Benedict just recently accept several Feeneyite religious orders. Thats more than what the SSPX have gotten from Benedict so far.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #33 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:13:11 AM »

Now you are just being childish and pestiferous.

I never said that MyrnaM was an authoritative infallible source. I just pointed out that what she said was correct.

Grow up and don't act like such a pest.

Has the Church been in error for centuries by honoring people a saints, who shed their blood in baptism when those souls are really in hell?

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:13:23 AM »

Roman Catholic, can you provide "infallible" evidence which shows that none of those Saints were previously "Water Baptized"?

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #35 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:14:57 AM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Quote from: Roman Catholic
The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?

Didn't Benedict claim that Feeneyism is not heretical and that a Catholic can indeed hold that belief? Also, didn't Benedict just recently accept several Feeneyite religious orders. Thats more than what the SSPX have gotten from Benedict so far.

The problem is, Roman Catholic (unless I am mistaken) does not accept B16 as a true Pope.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #36 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:17:31 AM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Quote from: Roman Catholic
The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?

Didn't Benedict claim that Feeneyism is not heretical and that a Catholic can indeed hold that belief? Also, didn't Benedict just recently accept several Feeneyite religious orders. Thats more than what the SSPX have gotten from Benedict so far.

I don't know. So what if he did? He does not seem to like the concepts of Limbo or Hell, so it's likely that in his view all Feeneyites will be saved along with those who believe in BOB and BOD...as well as everyone else who ever lived.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #37 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:18:11 AM »

Also, the ConciLIAR church accepts and promotes the acceptance of many versions of the Salvation doctrine, ie; the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans. So why would they also say they accept the strict adherance to the Dogmatic Definitions that Fr. Feeney preached.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #38 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:18:36 AM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Roman Catholic, can you provide "infallible" evidence which shows that none of those Saints were previously "Water Baptized"?

You show us some "infallible" evidence that any of them were.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #39 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:24:26 AM »

Here's an interesting quote regarding the martyology issue:

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise.”

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #40 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:30:19 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Roman Catholic, can you provide "infallible" evidence which shows that none of those Saints were previously "Water Baptized"?

You show us some "infallible" evidence which show that any were.

Roman Catholic, I don't have to show any evidence that they were "water baptized". All I have to show is the already established infallible teaching of the Church that only Water Baptism gives sanctifying grace. Therefore, a Catholic knowing their Church's teaching would realize that any Saint had to have been "Water Baptized" to enter Heaven.

So I'll ask again,..can you or anyone in this "TRADITIONAL" catholic forum provide any "TRADITIONAL DOGMATIC INFALLIBLE" teachings of the Church which makes the case for "baptism of blood" and for "extraordinary means" of salvation(which means salvation outside of the sacraments of the Church) ?

I've presented dogmatic teachings to make my case, but not one of you, as of yet, have been able to provide any dogmatic teaching for your position. Why is that ?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:37:39 AM »

Catecuмens who were marytred had not been previously baptized.

But you know what... I know this discussion is futile - you won't convince me to become a Feeneyite, and I won't convince you to cease being one. So I think I will pass on discussing further.

SJB · « **Reply #42 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:46:55 AM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Quote from: SJB
Deliver it somewhere else.

SJB, so you don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?

You're assuming that a lack of membership = outside the Church.

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:58:55 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Catecuмens who were marytred had not been previously baptized.

Roman Catholic, unlike today, catechumens were water baptized long ago and then continued in their catholic educaton. Plus, a Catholic is not to believe in "Baptism of blood" based on some unauthoritative, obscure and unidentified source. Instead a Catholic is suppose to believe in already established traditional dogmatic teachings of the Church,..period.

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 28, 2010, 11:05:18 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Deliveringit1
Quote from: SJB
Deliver it somewhere else.

SJB, so you don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?

You're assuming that a lack of membership = outside the Church.

I assume nothing, but instead I base my belief on already established traditional infallible dogmatic teaching from the Church.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:* “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.* And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. *The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” DZ 696