But rest assured, Fr. Waters is no longer just a "Novus Ordo" priest. Because of the unjust action of Bishop Chaput that cast public doubt upon the validity of Fr. Waters ordination, Fr. Waters was ordained conditionally in 2014 according to the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments", as dogmatized from the Council of Trent, by Bishop Richard Williamson who was likewise ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop in the "received and approved rites" of the Catholic Church by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is the use of the "received and approved rites" whereby a minister establishes that his intent is to "do what the Church does" which is necessary for sacramental validity. Fr. Samuel Waters’ orders are most certainly valid unlike every other Novus Ordo priest where the ordaining intention of the minister now must always be examined and sometimes viewed with grave suspicion.(https://i.imgur.com/A2X0NOa.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/A2X0NOa.jpeg)If they accept prevost as pope they either deny EENS or deny indefectibility and infallibility
(https://i.imgur.com/A75dMYD.jpeg)
Fr. Waters. Nomen est omen? God Bless him!
If they accept prevost as pope they either deny EENS or deny indefectibility and infallibility:sleep:
:sleep:So you are a heretic. Got it. Don’t let the door hit you on the way down (To hell).
So you are a heretic. Got it. Don’t let the door hit you on the way down (To hell).:sleep::sleep:
I'm having to wonder if this was once an Orthodox church building. Those domes are quite unusual, and there's just something about the architecture, both interior and exterior, that seems to indicate that. This said, it would be kind of odd for there to have been an Orthodox church in a smallish city in southeastern Pennsylvania (northeastern and southwestern, no, southeastern, yes).Apparently it used to be a ѕуηαgσgυє
Here's another view:
(https://i.imgur.com/bFj0VjW.png)
And yet, are you aware of this? If I am not mistaken, this chapel has a habit of using CathInfo posts as some sort of authoritative source. :smirk:Mass options in the USA in 2025:
http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic%20Controversies/Sedevacantists%20and%20Conservative%20Catholics-%20Unity%20in%20Error_%20Both%20believe%20Pope%20is%20Rule%20of%20Faith.htm
(http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic Controversies/Sedevacantists and Conservative Catholics- Unity in Error_ Both believe Pope is Rule of Faith.htm)
Mass options in the USA in 2025:Well, I suppose even those Una cuм EENS-professing chapels don't exactly get who is "in" and "outside of" the Church quite right. Whaddya gonna do
1) Una cuм and EENS-rejecting
2) Una cuм and EENS-professing
3) Non-Una cuм and EENS-rejecting
:popcorn:
Huh, it's almost like something is stopping the correct alignment, ya know?Yes..
EENS-rejecting
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic MissionP.O. Box 7352York, PA 17404(717) 792-2789www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com
+Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Enclosure: Email communication from Mr. X, an Indult Catholic from Lancaster, PA
Mr. X,
If you are "trapped," it is a trap of your own making. "If I were in (your) place" I would be rethinking what mistakes I made that got me there? In the end, I hope I would be doing what Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission has been doing for the last 25 years when we began with a monthly Mass in a basement chapel in Lancaster. It has been 24 years since the first OPEN LETTER was personally delivered to Bishop Dattilo by Msgr. Mercurio Fregapane requesting from him a formal judgment on the doctrinal, liturgical and moral arguments from the bishop. Fr. Fregapane was retired and no reply came from Bishop Dattilo. Since then there has been no reply from his successors.
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission was established firstly to defend the Catholic faith in the public forum. We know and understand that the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Church are not matter of mere discipline but are the very means by which the faith is expressed and communicated to others. It is because we profess and defend the Catholic faith that we offer the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass and not the Bugnini 1962 transitional indult missal. Our Mission was intended from the beginning to publically confront the local ordinary, and through him to confront Rome, with compelling doctrinal, liturgical, moral and canonical arguments regarding our inalienable rights as Catholic faithful which are directly derived from our duties imposed by God. For 25 years we have been trying to get the bishops of hαɾɾιsburg, or their designated representative, to enter into a public written exchange regarding the validity of our claims for the purpose of bringing those in error back to Catholic truth. In our letters to hαɾɾιsburg we have frequently reminded the bishops of Catholic saints who have spent their lives, often giving their lives, for the purpose of restoring heretics and schismatics to the Catholic Church. This has made no impression on them, and this should make every Catholic question why these slugs are so devoid of charity that they are indifferent in defending the truth or restoring heretical and schismatic Catholics to the Church. The purpose of a canonical contention is to determine who is contending for truth. Apparently, the Bishops of hαɾɾιsburg are not confident who in the end would be publically convicted of heresy and schism.
The Catholic bishops of the United States are the people who have stolen more than five billion dollars ($5,000,000,000.00) from Catholics to pay off the victims of their crimes of pederasty while studiously avoiding ever to identify that the problem is overwhelmingly caused by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clerics. We might think it charitable to attribute this to mindlessness but then we would justifiably be accused of being mindless as well. Any cleric that does not clearly recognize that the problem of sɛҳuąƖ corruption of the clergy is because of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is either a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ himself or a hireling thoroughly penetrated with the vice of sloth, the Novus Ordo's most evident moral failing. These clerics clearly do not have the Catholic faith. What Catholics saints such as St. Peter of Verona, St. Andrew Bobola, St. Josephat, St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, and the English martyrs under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I gave their lives to restore schismatics and heretics to the Catholic Church, the bishops of hαɾɾιsburg will not even attempt. As time goes by the fruit of Vatican II, a pastoral council that is an evident pastoral failure, becomes manifestly more fetid every year.
There is no reason that the Catholics in Lancaster cannot do what the Catholics in York have been doing, but you must know the Catholic faith. The remote rule of faith is found in Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith is DOGMA which is divine revelation infallibly defined and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The pope is the material and instrumental cause of dogma but it is God who is the formal and final cause. Dogma is, as St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven." Dogma is formulated for all the faithful. It is the end of theological speculation. The very definition of a heretic is a Catholic who rejects a dogma. The proximate rule of faith is not the pope or his local ordinary for they are as much subject to dogma as everyone of the faithful. We owe them obedience but an obedience that is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion which is the proximate subsidiary moral virtue to the virtue of Justice subject to the Faith. Any act of obedience to any properly constituted authority that violates the virtue of Religion is a sin and it matters not whether the person is your priest, your bishop or your pope. No Catholic cleric, no one whomsoever, has the authority to overturn the virtue of Religion regardless of his clerical rank or status. I repeat again, any act of obedience to a superior in violation of the virtue of Religion is a sin.
The virtue of Religion requires firstly to render to God the things that are God's. You are required by God as your first duty to profess the Catholic faith and offer fitting worship to God in the public forum. You therefore possess as a right the necessary means to fulfill these obligations. It is the duty of the bishop to insure that the means to fulfill your obligations are available to you. When the bishop fails in his duty you are free to pursue the means without his help or even against it. That is Catholic moral teaching.
Recently we celebrated the feast of St. Charles Borromeo whose motto to his priests in Milan was "Stand up and be shot"! If that was declared to the clerics in the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg they would all wet their pants. When St. Charles was appointed the bishop of Milan he immediately left Rome for Milan, a city at the time of 800,000, the largest diocese in Italy, to take up his residence. He was the first bishop in 80 years to actually live in Milan. The state of affairs in the Church is far more degraded today where the last two popes have openly embraced sodomites who claim to be "married." Today we would count it a blessing if our local ordinary would pack his bags and go live somewhere else!
The bishops of hαɾɾιsburg have provided the 1962 Bugnini transitional Novus Ordo Missal as an Indult, then as a grant of legal privilege, and now again as an Indult and this grant has always been tied to unacceptable conditions that compromise the faith. You need to dump the Bugnini Missal and claim your rights as Catholics to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite that was dogmatized at the Council of Trent and inserted into the Tridentine Profession of Faith. If Bishop Senior will not do his duty, you are free to obtain another priest to help fulfill your obligations. The granting of supplied jurisdiction by the Church is for this very purpose. You as a Catholic have a right to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rites because you have a duty to worship God and profess the Catholic faith in the public forum especially when that faith and worship are being compromised by the Church hierarchy. Bishop Senior has the obligation to provide the means to fulfill these duties through his ordinary jurisdiction. When the ordinary jurisdiction fails, the Church provides supplied jurisdiction to any cleric willing to assume the responsibility that the local ordinary is refusing to do. Supplied jurisdiction is established by the needs of the faithful. Furthermore, you have a right to the integral Catholic truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You have a moral obligation to avoid any cleric preaching heresy or corrupting Catholic morality in the pulpit or the confessional.
You need to understand that the charge of schism by the bishops of hαɾɾιsburg repeated ad nauseam for the last 25 years is meaningless. The crime of schism is an act that requires a motive that denies the universal jurisdiction of the pope. This can only be determined by a canonical inquiry. In fact, there is one, and only one, manifest sin that always reveals the crime of schism and that is manifest heresy, for St. Thomas says, "All heretics are schismatics," and since Vatican I's dogmatic declarations on papal jurisdiction, all schismatics are heretics. Heresy is the denial of dogma, and that can be known not only by what is said, but by what is not said and should be. It can also be manifest by acts, or failures to act when necessary to defend the faith. The bishops do not want a canonical inquiry because they will never establish a schismatic motive for any of our actions at Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission while the evidence for clerical heresy is as easy to find as sand on a seashore. Any recent review of PEW polls demonstrate the abysmal failure of the Catholic bishops of the United States to teach or defend Catholic doctrine or uphold Catholic morals.
As to the other options you mentioned, Bishop Donald Sanborn is a sedevacantist. His misguided theology turned the Church into a papal cult by holding the pope as his proximate rule of faith. He then concludes that since the pope is a problem, he usurps the power to administratively remove him from office. In so doing he has become the leader of a cult that worships Sanborn instead of the pope. He is in a church of his own making that not only does not have a pope but is missing the material and instrumental means (causes) to ever get one. He is in a church that is permanently missing a necessary attribute of the Catholic Church. He is the blind leader of the blind. In his new church, he refuses the sacraments to any Catholic that is not vetted as bending to his personal creed. It is so bizarre that he announces on his web page that he will refuse the sacraments to any Catholic who actually believes the dogmas that the sacraments are necessary for salvation! His theology corrupts the very nature of the Church and now he has become his own pope.
The Fraternity of St. Peter is a group of geldings. They have promised to keep their mouths shut in the face of manifest crimes against Catholic doctrine and morality for the "privilege" of eating table scraps. It is the faith itself that is in danger and they are dogs that won't bark.
The SSPX has already been regularized in their leadership to Rome and this occurred more than ten years ago. This fact has not been openly shared by the leadership with their members or with the faithful that attend their chapels. It is the intent of Rome to eventually herd all "traditional" Catholics under their authority. There is not a dime's worth of difference between the SSPX and the Fraternity of St. Peter. I have two OPEN LETTERS on our webpage, one explaining why the SSPX cannot defend the Catholic faith and another explaining why they cannot defend our immemorial liturgical traditions.
If you want to defend the faith then you must do what we are doing in York. If you are content to live as you are then I recommend that you just inform Bishop Senior that you are considering that option of doing exactly what Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission is doing in York and see what happens. When Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission began there was no Latin Mass in the diocese excepting the one offered on the First Saturday of the month which in the beginning frequently suffered changes in both locations and times to discourage attendance. That is how it would be today without our Mission. When the diocese opened the Indult more than 50% of those who had attended our Masses left to become Indultists. The financial and material contributions to our Mission from these Indultists was next to nothing. We suffered nothing from their absence. I am perfectly satisfied with a our small group of thoroughly committed Catholics and I have no interest in packing our pews with compromisers. You should understand that the reason that the Latin Mass and the traditional sacraments are offered in hαɾɾιsburg in a beautiful setting, in a central location, at convenient times is because that is what Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission established in York. The more time passes we have proven to have been correct in everything we have argued whether on Catholic doctrine, liturgy, morality or law. We do not have to retract or qualify any of our OPEN LETTERS or our communications with the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg or the Vatican. If we were gone tomorrow, eventually so would be the Indult. That's how it works for the Novus Ordo clerics. Their aim is not to preach and defend Catholic doctrine, worship or morality but to destroy it.
Sincerely in Christ,
D. M. Drew
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
cc: Bishop Timothy Senior, Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg
Enclosure: Email communication to Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission from Indult Catholic, Lancaster, PA
Hello Dr. Drew:
I am with the Lancaster Latin Mass Community. We spoke several years ago. I recently had a conversation with Bishop Sanborn of the Roman Catholic Institute in Reading, PA. Their apostolate continues to grow while we remain trapped at a 1 p.m. TLM within a hostile parish in Lancaster.
As Pope Leo continues to push heresy, we are examining all of our options. It would be great to partner with you during this time of apostasy and emergency, but I don't know exactly how we would do it. Our TLM remains permitted under a dispensation that lapsed in July. Bishop Senior requested a renewal in June, but no word back from DDW. If we are closed or forced to a "Latin Novus Ordo", I need options.
We spoke with Fr. Boyle at the SSPX Priory in Syracuse and I recall your opposition to the SSPX, but in any event, they don't have clergy to spare and even if they did, it would be something like a once-a-month Mass. With their need for new bishops, a confrontation or accommodation with Rome seems inevitable.
I would be interested in your thoughts on the RCI. As I see it, we have a continuum ranging from indult diocesan Mass (our present Lancaster option), then the FSSP in hαɾɾιsburg who made their deal with Rome, the SSPX, then your independent chapel, then the sedevacantists (RCI).
If you were in my place with 175 faithful on an average Sunday, what would you recommend we do to maintain a TLM in Lancaster?
Sincerely in Christ,
Mr. Name Withheld by request
Bishop Donald Sanborn [..] is the blind leader of the blind. In his new church, he refuses the sacraments to any Catholic that is not vetted as bending to his personal creed. It is so bizarre that he announces on his web page that he will refuse the sacraments to any Catholic who actually believes the dogmas that the sacraments are necessary for salvation! His theology corrupts the very nature of the Church and now he has become his own pope
This part, at least, is quite right. And it is shameful
The remote rule of faith is found in Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith is DOGMA which is divine revelation infallibly defined and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The pope is the material and instrumental cause of dogma but it is God who is the formal and final cause. Dogma is, as St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven." Dogma is formulated for all the faithful. It is the end of theological speculation. The very definition of a heretic is a Catholic who rejects a dogma. The proximate rule of faith is not the pope or his local ordinary for they are as much subject to dogma as everyone of the faithful.
This part, at least, is quite right. And it is shameful
Right ... but the part attacking sedevacantism is an absolute disaster, especially this hot mess here:
:facepalm:
Which part therein?All
Those are all some serious charges, which one(s) are true though?
1) Is a blind leader of the blind.+Sanborn denies Church teaching on EENS, he holds the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved. He is blind and he teaches those who attend his sect this heresy, and they follow him
2) Has established a new church.See above. What +Sanborn professes and teaches is not of the Church. His group is his own, with its own doctrine that must be held to be a "member"
3) Refuses sacraments to any Catholic that is not vetted as bending to his personal creed.+Sanborn and his group refuse the sacraments to those who do not hold his opinions (some which are heretical).
4) Is bizarre that he will refuse sacraments to any Catholic that actually believes the dogmas that...etc.
5) His theology corrupts the very nature of the Church.That is what heresy does. When you deny a Dogma, which is to be believed as a "truth fallen from heaven", you relegate the Church and Her infallible teachings to a mere human institution that you can decide to accept or reject at will. When you deny a Dogma of the Faith, your motive of faith is your own private judgement..not because the Church, who is the guardian of the deposit of faith, teaches it as Divinely revealed
6) He has become his own Pope
From a heretical Feeneyite perspective, agreeing with implicit faith and implicit denial of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus is shameful !!!
Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.
It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
There are plenty of replies to your comments on the thread below and on this same subject by Drew.
Maybe others will benefit from it.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/
A lot of that all around wouldn't you say?Specifically, uniquely? Not much. Their forbiddance of Una cuм masses is probably the only unique thing about them, but SGG might do that too. Not sure. I know the SSPV refuses the sacraments to those who do not hold their opinion on BOD, but "permits" Una cuм attendance. I respect the wishes of all of these groups, they would not hold me to be "in communion" with them anyways. Hopefully they come around to the Truth
I mean, what SPECIFICALLY about RCI/+Sanborn do you find uniquely "heretical" and "sectarian"?
When you say "traditional" do you mean "explicit desire"?Traditional as in explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. Explicit or implicit desire of Baptism after that, opinions vary..
vs.
What +Sanborn is teaching - implicit desire?
I think St. Alphonsus taught it was de fide, others say it is certain, others yet, say it is more common. Some say explicit only, others say implicit is ok too. It really is beyond the keen of anyone to sort out all those theological opinions and then latch onto one as if it was a dogma.
The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ.
If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error
And if someone is saved who is in those false religions, it has nothing to do with that false religion. It has to do with the grace of God and their ignorance.
Well, from what I can tell, it was a pretty "normal" pre-Vatican II position.That's just the problem. Even the Holy Office said in the 1700s that explicit faith in the Incarnation and Trinity is required before someone is baptised (for age of reason). And even in danger of death they must first profess these things or they are not to be baptised.
Even +Lefebvre said in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics",
"It is true that one can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by that religion. One can be saved in it despite that religion, and by the Catholic religion, to which anyone who is saved belongs, even if he does not know it. He is saved by the grace of God which is given to him in view of his good faith, of his fidelity to the natural law and to his conscience, if he is in invincible ignorance of the true religion.”
Some good points about the development of opinions here:
https://archive.org/details/necessityofchurc0000king (https://archive.org/details/necessityofchurc0000king)
But not +Sanborn apparently...Why not?Huh, am I receiving the sacraments at RCI chapels without them (or me, for that matter :laugh1: ) knowing it?
Do you say this just because of the BOD stuff?
Do you mean the truth about how they are clinging to a theological opinions about BOD as if it was a dogma (in some persons cases) and they should not do that?Sure, and EENS denial.
Well, from what I can tell, it was a pretty "normal" pre-Vatican II position.Yeah, Archbishop Lefebvre had some statements that are much more explicit than what +Sanborn has said. EENS denial was pretty rampant since at least the mid-late 19th century AFAIK
Sorry, but your husband is wrong about the Pope not being the Proximate Rule of Faith. By replacing the "living Magisterium" (the role played by the Pope) with static Dogma, your husband falls into the error of the Old Catholics.
On the Cathinfo page you linked to, your husband said the following:
"Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority."
On Magisterium.com (a mainstream Catholic AI good for Catholic 101 stuff like this) the question was asked,
"Is the Pope the proximate rule of faith?"
The concept of the "rule of faith" in Catholic theology refers to the authoritative standard by which the deposit of faith—divinely revealed truths contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition—is known, interpreted, and proposed to the faithful. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition themselves, while the proximate rule is the living Magisterium of the Church, which authentically interprets and guards these sources under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.1 (#post_footnote-1) Within this framework, the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter and the visible head of the Church, holds a unique and supreme role as the proximate rule of faith, particularly in resolving doctrinal questions and defining truths for the universal Church. This authority is not absolute in a personal sense but derives from his office, exercised either extraordinarily (ex cathedra) or ordinarily, ensuring unity and fidelity to the apostolic faith.2 (#post_footnote-2) 3 (#post_footnote-3) 4
(#post_footnote-4)
The Pope's Primacy in Teaching Authority
The Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff possesses full, supreme, and universal power over the Church, jure divino (by divine right), as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of the entire flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17).5 (#post_footnote-5)6 (#post_footnote-6) 7 (#post_footnote-7) 8 (#post_footnote-8) This includes the responsibility to "feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," making him the principal teacher of all Christians.5 (#post_footnote-5) As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, the Pope's authority extends to issuing authoritative judgments on matters of faith "sententialiter determinare" (decisively), so that they may be held by the whole Church with "unshaken faith."2 (#post_footnote-2) This role ensures there is "but one faith of the whole Church" (1 Cor 1:10), preventing schisms by resolving disputes that arise.2 (#post_footnote-2) 4 (#post_footnote-4)
St. Robert Bellarmine further clarifies that the Pope, as the Pastor and universal Teacher of the Church, can define matters of faith even without a council, for he "cannot err when he teaches ex cathedra; otherwise the whole Church would err."3 (#post_footnote-3)This underscores the Pope's position as the proximate norm for the faith, where his definitive teachings bind the consciences of the faithful irrevocably, preserving the purity of the Gospel.9 (#post_footnote-9) 10 (#post_footnote-10)
Distinctions in Magisterial Authority
Not every papal statement constitutes the proximate rule of faith; the Church distinguishes between levels of authority. Infallible teachings—whether through solemn definitions (extraordinary Magisterium) or the ordinary and universal Magisterium—form the primary and secondary objects of infallibility and demand the full assent of faith (fides divina or fides ecclesiastica).1 (#post_footnote-1) The Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements, as defined by Vatican I, meet this criterion, protecting revealed truths from error.11 (#post_footnote-11) Even non-infallible teachings in the ordinary Magisterium require religious submission of intellect and will, as they contribute to the Church's doctrinal development and safeguard against harm to faith and morals.1 (#post_footnote-1) 12 (#post_footnote-12) 13 (#post_footnote-13)
For instance, Pope Leo XIII affirms that "questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church," and his sentence "must consequently be accepted without wavering."4 (#post_footnote-4) This primacy is echoed in Vatican I's declaration that the Pope is the "supreme judge of the faithful" in ecclesiastical matters, with no higher authority, such as an ecuмenical council, to which one may appeal.14 (#post_footnote-14) Historical errors, like the Gallican articles suggesting papal judgments need the Church's consent to be unalterable, have been condemned as void.15 (#post_footnote-15)
Implications for the Faithful
The Pope's role as proximate rule of faith means Catholics are bound to adhere to his authoritative teachings on doctrine, morals, and governance, fostering communion and obedience.6 (#post_footnote-6) This is not a diminishment of the bishops' role—who, with the Pope, form the college of authentic teachers—but a recognition of Petrine primacy, which "presides in love" over the universal Church.11 (#post_footnote-11) 8 (#post_footnote-8) As Pope Pius XII taught, this obedience extends to all pastors and faithful, ensuring "one flock under one supreme shepherd."6 (#post_footnote-6) In practice, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith assists the Pope in promoting and safeguarding this integrity, examining potential errors and providing rebuttals.16 (#post_footnote-16) 9 (#post_footnote-9) 10 (#post_footnote-10)
In summary, yes, the Pope is the proximate rule of faith in his magisterial office, serving as the divinely appointed guardian and interpreter of the depositum fidei for the entire Church. This ensures doctrinal unity amid contemporary challenges, always in service to the truth revealed by Christ.17 (#post_footnote-17)
For deeper exploration, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 85-100) outlines the Magisterium's role comprehensively.
[1] D'Costa's Hermeneutics page3 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/0df615c8-b8fa-4101-aae9-64efb7054fef/ref/page3)
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas and the Origins of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility page42 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/979c4f3f-11d4-49ec-8f15-8f845bfdf682/ref/page42)
[3] Controversies of the Christian Faith (Disputationes de Controversiis) page453 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/188b96b1-0c0c-43f1-b0ca-46ad1dd9c5ec/ref/page453)
[4] Sapientiae Christianae 23 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/71816369-9e04-4c9d-91ac-c4feedcdc1db/ref/23)
[5] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/17f50f07-de81-4bf5-997c-f41ee830c033/ref/3059)
[6] Ad Apostolorum principis 46 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/65704c7c-f321-4704-9db2-20513dd31008/ref/46)
[7] Evangelii Nuntiandi 67 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/e20dda2b-9362-42c3-98a2-85e21060afc8/ref/67)
[8] Satis Cognitum 13 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/eee352ae-17f1-40fd-8fd3-d05d4344a385/ref/13)
[9] Regulations for Doctrinal Examination - Ratio Agendi 1 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/440212fb-f7cd-4d7e-9093-8fbe997d1ae3/ref/1)
[10] To promote and safeguard the faith (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/9b399930-e1a4-4908-ab95-3d37c5066762/ref/)
[11] Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church: Christ – Our Pascha 291 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/5c0fb401-3c71-494e-bfce-ac8641dafd3b/ref/291)
[12] Falliable Teachings and the Assistance of the Holy Spirit Reflections on the Ordinary Magisterium in Connection with the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian page21 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/337cfd1a-8cb1-4b94-9e17-4b38a29ea41b/ref/page21)
[13] CCC 2050 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/0583c069-d4bf-42dd-97de-c19f0b80150f/ref/2050)
[14] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3063 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/17f50f07-de81-4bf5-997c-f41ee830c033/ref/3063)
[15] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 2284 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/17f50f07-de81-4bf5-997c-f41ee830c033/ref/2284)
[16] Praedicate Evangelium Art. 69 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/dd0f2abe-eb44-44c5-a69b-1ce251a3a8cc/ref/Art. 69)
[17] 10 December 2000: Jubilee of Catechists - Homily 3
(https://www.magisterium.com/docs/2b27c891-ac7e-46ce-b54a-c85931413eb7/ref/3)And then a follow up question was asked,
Does the error of the Old Catholics attempt to replace the Pope as the proximate rule of faith with static dogma?
Yes, the error of the Old Catholics can be understood as an attempt to replace the Pope's role as the proximate rule of faith—embodied in his living magisterial authority to interpret and guard the deposit of faith—with a static conception of dogma limited to pre-Vatican I teachings, which they regard as the unalterable and exhaustive expression of the "ancient Catholic faith." This position undermines the dynamic, Spirit-guided development of doctrine under Petrine primacy, reducing the Church's teaching authority to a fixed historical corpus without the Pope's supreme interpretive function.1 (#post_footnote-1) 2
(#post_footnote-2)
Historical Context of the Old Catholic Schism
The Old Catholics emerged in the late 19th century as a direct response to the First Vatican Council's definition of papal infallibility (1870), which they denounced as an "innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church."1 (#post_footnote-1) Led by figures like Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger and Johann Friedrich von Schulte, they issued declarations rejecting the dogma and organized separate communities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and elsewhere, convening congresses (e.g., Munich, 1871) to affirm adherence to what they called the "ancient Catholic faith" while repudiating "new dogmas."1 (#post_footnote-1) 3 (#post_footnote-3)They elected their own bishops, such as Joseph Hubert Reinkens in 1873, and sought state recognition in places like Prussia, Baden, and Hesse, framing themselves as the true preservers of Catholicism against "Ultramontanism"—a term they used pejoratively for the enhanced role of the Roman Pontiff.1 (#post_footnote-1)
In their synodal constitutions and resolutions, the Old Catholics emphasized a return to the "constitutions of the ancient Church," rejecting not only infallibility but also elements like mandatory confession, clerical celibacy, and the Roman liturgy in favor of local adaptations.1 (#post_footnote-1) 3 (#post_footnote-3) Pope Pius IX condemned this in Etsi Multa (1873), accusing them of "attack[ing] and pervert[ing] the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff" and asserting that the Pope and bishops had "fallen into heresy" by approving Vatican I.2 (#post_footnote-2) They boldly claimed the Church's visible head and hierarchy had "erred," necessitating a "restoration" of a "legitimate episcopacy" outside Roman communion, which Pius IX described as entering "not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber."2 (#post_footnote-2)
Replacement of Proximate Rule with Static Dogma
In Catholic theology, the proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium—the Church's authentic teaching office, headed by the Pope—which interprets Scripture and Tradition infallibly when exercising its full authority, ensuring doctrinal unity and development "in the same sense and the same meaning" (eodem sensu eademque sententia).4 (#post_footnote-4) 5 (#post_footnote-5) The Old Catholics' error inverts this by subordinating the Magisterium to a static set of dogmas they deem "harmonious with the actual consciousness of the Church," excluding any post-1870 developments as invalid innovations.1 (#post_footnote-1) This effectively elevates a selective, historical corpus of teachings—such as those from the early councils—above the Pope's ongoing role as the "supreme judge" and "universal teacher," who resolves faith disputes with "unshaken faith" binding the whole Church.6 (#post_footnote-6) 7 (#post_footnote-7) 8 (#post_footnote-8)
By denying papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church in its hierarchical teaching, the Old Catholics imply that the deposit of faith is fully captured in "static" dogmas without need for the Pope's proximate guidance.2 (#post_footnote-2) They reject the idea that the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, holds "full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," instead promoting a more democratic or synodal model where laity and local bishops hold interpretive primacy.9 (#post_footnote-9) 2 (#post_footnote-2) This mirrors condemned errors like Gallicanism, which limited papal authority to mere execution of conciliar decisions, but goes further by schismatically separating to enforce their vision.4 (#post_footnote-4) As a result, their communities devolved toward liberal reforms, ecuмenical alliances with Protestants and Jansenists, and eventual rationalism, losing any claim to Catholic orthodoxy.1 (#post_footnote-1) 3 (#post_footnote-3)
Broader Theological Implications
This error not only fractures ecclesial unity but also contradicts the Church's teaching that dogmas are not isolated artifacts but living truths integrated within the "hierarchy of truths" and the Church's full life of worship and doctrine.5 (#post_footnote-5)The Old Catholics' approach risks a "legal positivism" that freezes revelation, ignoring the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium for ongoing clarification amid new contexts.10 (#post_footnote-10) In contrast, Vatican I affirmed the Pope's primacy as essential for the Church's stability, ensuring that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against it.8 (#post_footnote-8) 2 (#post_footnote-2) Their persistent small numbers and doctrinal drifts today (e.g., ordination of women, same-sex blessings in some branches) illustrate the instability of bypassing Petrine authority.1 (#post_footnote-1)
In conclusion, the Old Catholics' rejection of papal infallibility indeed seeks to supplant the Pope's dynamic role as proximate rule of faith with a static, selective dogma, leading to schism and a diminished understanding of the Church's indefectible teaching mission. This remains a cautionary example of how denying Petrine primacy fragments the faith.2 (#post_footnote-2)
[1] Catholic Encyclopedia Old Catholics (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Old Catholics)
[2] Etsi Multa (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/e0eff492-6ea5-4895-ab0d-328d1bdb38e4/ref/)
[3] Catholic Encyclopedia Schism (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Schism)
[4] Catholic Encyclopedia Dogma (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Dogma)
[5] The Interpretation of Dogma B.III.3 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/aa8fad13-1a4b-4e89-a134-85ddb9e58d83/ref/B.III.3)
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia Error (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Error)
[7] Infideles et Philosophi: Re-Reading ST II-II, q. 2, a. 2, ad 3 page13 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/eb83d556-b5e6-4ed3-a565-13b75549927f/ref/page13)
[8] The Bishop of Rome 3.134 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/37bcdae2-ecb3-4552-a84f-4f347976eb1b/ref/3.134)
[9] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/17f50f07-de81-4bf5-997c-f41ee830c033/ref/3059)
[10] In the Name of Jesus Christ: A Few Historical Perspectives on the Functioning of Authority in Biblical Interpretation page25 (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/8cd21c9d-9d74-4969-84f1-c42b984d96f0/ref/page25)
St. Thomas (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), corrupt its dogmas (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm)"
The Extraordinary Magisterium
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (https://catholicism.org/lateran-iv.html) (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (https://catholicism.org/unam-sanctam.html) (A.D. 1302): “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 Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (https://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html) (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
The First Vatican Councillet him be anathema.
- 4. On faith and reason
- 1. If anyone says that
- in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that
- all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles:
let him be anathema.
- 2. If anyone says that
- human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that
- they may not be forbidden by the church:
let him be anathema.
- 3. If anyone says that
- it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
- And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.
- But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this docuмent, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see.
Emphasis mine
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
Pope Pius X - 1910
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical docuмents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
St. Paul
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
[Galatians 1:8 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8#x)]
Well, those theological opinions (BOD specifically) are NOT YET condemned.The major problem is the denial of EENS, that is what is heretical..not so much BOD theories (although the simple fact of the matter is that the fruit of BOD tolerance is near universal EENS denial). What seemingly 99% of trad clerics believe is that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved while being Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. That they can be saved in these false religions. Yes, they say "but not by those religions". They say those non-Catholics can be united to the "soul of the Church", but not the Body. It is all contrary to what has already been taught.
[The 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic churchPope Eugene teaches the Dogma exactly as it is to be believed.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
Council of Florence
the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvationThe Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, though not all. Meaning that at least one is. That one is, obviously, Baptism..which is the "gateway to the spiritual life", and "holds first place among all the sacraments"
Angelus,
I can only speak for myself. My husband can choose to do it as time permits. He still works.
You and the SSPX deny dogma as dogma. The SSPX have smeared Catholics for decades that believe in the literal meaning of dogma as "Feeneyites". As far as I know, the only dogmas they have problems with are the 3 dogmas on EENS because either ABL is wrong or dogma is, so they have their (fallible) theologians tell you what the (Infallibly Defined) dogma really means. They will tell you that you have to understand the dogmas in the way "the Church itself understand it". The Infallible, immutable dogmas are the way "the Church itself understand them".
The popes are just as subject to dogma as anyone else, in fact, their duty is to guard and defend the Deposit of Faith. For three hundred years the popes were martyred for doing it.
This is "101" on Dogma, not for you but for the faithful being mislead by you, the SSPX and all SV trained by them. They can read what the Magisterium teaches but let's begin with the definition of heresy:
(https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm)
St. Pius X said that the goal of Modernism is the destruction of dogma which was also the goal of Vatican II.
And Lastly,
So for the EENS deniers and BOD proponents, the problem is that Eugene IV infallibly teaches that pagans, jews, etc are in no way "united" or "joined" to the Church, and that only for those in the unity of the ecclesiastical Body do the Sacraments contribute to salvation. Those same sacraments that are necessary for salvation. Those pagans, Jews, etc. are not members of the Body, so the Sacraments cannot contribute to their salvation. The same Sacraments that are necessary for salvation!
The major problem is the denial of EENS, that is what is heretical..not so much BOD theories (although the simple fact of the matter is that the fruit of BOD tolerance is near universal EENS denial). What seemingly 99% of trad clerics believe is that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved while being Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. That they can be saved in these false religions. Yes, they say "but not by those religions". They say those non-Catholics can be united to the "soul of the Church", but not the Body. It is all contrary to what has already been taught.
This is just one example:
Pope Eugene teaches the Dogma exactly as it is to be believed.
"Pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics" are outside of the Church.
Pope Eugene IV makes no exceptions. Pagans, Jew, heretics, and schismatics are outside of the Church. Nice ones, mean ones, just-plain-evil ones, keep-the-natural-law good ones, are all outside of the Church, not joined to the Church, not abiding in it, not in the Church's bosom, not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body.
As Pope Eugene IV taught this from the Chair of Peter, we are bound to believe this as Divinely revealed
Again (and I think this is a point that cannot be stressed enough) Pope Eugene IV, speaking from the Chair of Peter, teaches us that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are outside the Church, not joined to the Church, not abiding in the Church, not in the bosom of the Church, not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body, without exception
He does not say that a pagan, jew, etc. is outside, not joined, not abiding in, not in the bosom of, not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body now, but might not necessarily be later if they are "invincibly ignorant" or "follow the natural law". On the contrary, he teaches that every non-Catholic is outside, not joined, not abiding in, etc. the Church as long as are non-Catholic and non-members. An "invincibly ignorant" Hindu is a Hindu 1 decade before he dies, 1 year before, 1 day before, 1 hour before, 1 second before. If that Hindu is still in the Hindu religion when he dies (as these Trad clerics claim), then he falls under the "pagans" Pope Eugene IV referenced, and is outside of the the Church, and cannot be saved!
It is a clear denial of the Dogma for these Trad clerics to say that pagans, jew, heretics, and schismatics can be saved in their false religion by being "united" or "joined" to the "soul" of the Church, even if they try to save themselves by simultaneously saying that the non-Catholics are not saved by their false religion..because as has been taught, non-Catholics are outside, not joined to, not abiding in, not in the bosom of Church, not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body. Pope Eugene IV made clear that they are in no way "joined" or "united" to any "part" of the Church, at any time
This part is especially important, and is a clear refutation not only of the EENS-denial, but I think also of BOD/BOB:
The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, though not all. Meaning that at least one is. That one is, obviously, Baptism..which is the "gateway to the spiritual life", and "holds first place among all the sacraments"
The problem that not only EENS-deniers face, but also BOD proponents, is that those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism are not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body (i.e. members of the body of Christ, the Church). No theologian has ever taught that BOD makes someone an actual member of the Church, as that would be contrary to infallible Church teaching (Trent Sess 14, Ch. 2, Eugene IV at Florence, Exultate Deo), teaching that was also echoed by Pius XII (Mystici Corporis, Mediator Dei), I'm sure other popes as well, but I would have to look around. Only the Sacrament of Baptism, celebrated in water, makes someone a member of the Body of Christ.
So for the EENS deniers and BOD proponents, the problem is that Eugene IV infallibly teaches that pagans, jews, etc are in no way "united" or "joined" to the Church, and that only for those in the unity of the ecclesiastical Body do the Sacraments contribute to salvation. Those same sacraments that are necessary for salvation. Those pagans, Jews, etc. are not members of the Body, so the Sacraments cannot contribute to their salvation. The same Sacraments that are necessary for salvation!
What you say is absolutely true for "salvation," which means going straight to Heaven without a stop in any other abode after death.
However, not all who are outside the Church will burn in Hell forever and never make it to Paradise. In fact, even most Catholics will suffer "the fires of Hell" in Purgatory for a long time before entering Paradise.
It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives;
What you say is absolutely true for "salvation," which means going straight to Heaven without a stop in any other abode after death. No one, who is not a baptized member of the Church has the chance "to benefit from the ecclesiastical sacraments and fasting, almsgiving and other offices of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery that bring forth eternal rewards." These things prepare the white garment of the soul. And they are only available to Catholics.This is the first time I have seen this narrow definition of salvation...salvation is entering the Kingdom of Heaven, plain and simple. All Catholics who die in a state of grace will enter the state of salvation.
However, not all who are outside the Church will burn in Hell forever and never make it to Paradise. In fact, even most Catholics will suffer "the fires of Hell" in Purgatory for a long time before entering Paradise.
With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sinAs shown by Eugene IV's teaching, pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics are in no way united to the Church in any manner. Their sins cannot be remitted, ergo they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Ever.
The point is that there are other temporary places for those non-saved souls are "detained," and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. Aquinas speaks of five places:
Right ... BoD cannot stand up to the definition of Florence regarding how the Sacraments cannot benefit them to salvation, which is precisely the only non-openly-heretical version of BoD you can hold, namely, that the Sacrament of Baptism somehow effects salvation by operating through the desire for it. If you denied that it did, then you are a heretic for denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. But, the problem is that the prospective beneficiary of BoD is not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body, since all theologians admit that one does not join the body until the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, i.e. that those receiving BoD are not in the Body of the Church, but somehow just attached to the soul, etc. But if that's the case -- and it is -- then Florence dogmatically teaches that the Sacrament cannot in fact benefit them unto salvation. Trent also teaches the same about the Sacrament of Confession, where perfect contrition on its own cannot restore a fallen soul to a state of justification, not without the intention to receive the Sacrament, since there can be no forgiveness of sin after a post-Baptismal fall without the Sacrament. So, then, perfect contrition on its own can't restore non-Catholics to any kind of state of justification, since they cannot receive the Sacrament of Confession, nor are the unbaptized even subjec to the power of the keys, which is necessary for absolution from sin.I think it's truly providential that Pope Eugene IV used the terms that he did when referring to those outside the Church. He taught that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics:
Now, Msgr. Fenton at least recognized this problem, and he correctly rejected the idea that people can be saved simply be belonging to the "soul" of the Church, rejecting the notion that there can be a soul of the Church that's not co-extensive with the body, as if the animal soul of a human body can extend beyond the actual physical body itself.
So what he does is claim that one can be IN the Body of the Church without being a PART OF the Body of the Church (i.e. a member of the Church) ... something which I've described as "Undigested Hamburger Ecclesiology". So, what is in the body but not part of it. Well, something like food that is IN the stomach but has not been digested and somehow converted into human tissue and made one with the body.
But Florence destroys that as well, since it explicilty teaches that they must be in the UNITY of the Body. Food that you put in your mouth is not PART OF your body, one with your body ... but is merely per accidens in your body. Unity with the Body requires a substantial conformity with it, i.e. where you would have to share the body's DNA and be part of the organism, not just accidentally inside and/or somehow attached to your body. I could also conduct some bizarre experiment where I would take the body part of an animal and sew it onto a human being (some sicko scientists have in fact done stuff like that), but that doesn't mean that it's essentially part of my body, just accidentally fused onto it.
SVs have attacked SSPX and other R&R for their "Frankenchurch" theology, but this take "Frankenchurch" to the next level, where it's possible like Victor Frankenstein, to stitch together various disparate body parts into some monstrosity. Is that the Body of the Church? Ridiculous.
Yeah, so now you engage in a play of words where those outside the Church are not saved and go to Hell only in the sense that they god to the "fires of Hell" in Purgatory. These heretics never cease to amaze me with their lies and mendacity.
While, some theologians claim that the fires of Purgatory and the fires of Hell are the same fires (I dispute this), Purgatory and Hell are two completely different places, where those in Purgatgory are in a state of justification, are friends with God, and are in a state of grace, whereas those in Hell are not.
But, then, again, you don't bother to read the Church's dogmatic definition at Florence.
Let's try again:
So, yeah, those outside the Church will burn in Hell forever, and not the temporary "Hell" that you've just redefined as Purgatory. See that term there above, "everlasting", you know, the fire where the devils are ... or do you believe the devils are in Purgatory and will also eventually get out? At that point, you're on track to sllide into a different heresy, that of Origen, and revived by Bergoglio here, where in the end, everyone will be converted and enter union with God, all the wicked, and even the devils.
This is the kindof crap that causes steam to practically come out of my ears, it's so stupid, and such a pack of lies, distortions, and fallacies ... that it can only come from the diseased mind of someone who absolute refuses to accept the Church's dogmatic teaching, but then whose tortured conscience will attempt just about anything to claim they actually believe it by completely redefining the meaning of the words, the terms, the concepts ... so they can pay lip service to it, but then what they actually affirm in their intellects is the exact opposite of what the Church was actually teaching here.
Yeah, when the Church says "salvation", it's referring only to those who bypassed Purgatory. When the Church says "Hell", she really means Purgatory. When the Church says "everlasting fire prepared for the devil", she really means "temporary fire prepared for the just". When the Church says "is", she really means ... When the Church says "is no", she really means "is". If you don't believe that non-Catholics CAN be saved, then you're a heretic who rejects Church teaching, since we have to understand dogma as the Church understands it, or, rather, I say the Church underestand it, meaning that you're a heretic if you don't accept me as your rule of faith.
You have to be almost certifiably insane to spew this nonsense out there. No, salvation means what everyone understand by salvation. No, the everlasting fires prepared for the devil and his angels really is Hell, and not Purgatory. Yes, "is" does in fact mean "is", and "is no" does not mean "is".
This is the first time I have seen this narrow definition of salvation...salvation is entering the Kingdom of Heaven, plain and simple. All Catholics who die in a state of grace will enter the state of salvation.
Uhhh, I really hope I am misinterpreting what you are saying here. If not, it is easily refuted by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam:
As shown by Eugene IV's teaching, pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics are in no way united to the Church in any manner. Their sins cannot be remitted, ergo they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Ever.
Aquinas speaks of no place that those who die outside the Church are temporarily held...
Yes, those outside the Church who remain in their state of sin by rejecting Christ and His Church at the time of their death "cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Ever." Agreed.
But people in those categories can make an act of Perfect Contrition to God directly before their death can be justified by that act. They will not go to Heaven directly. They will need to expiate their sins. Where do they do that?
Yes, those outside the Church who remain in their state of sin by rejecting Christ and His Church at the time of their death "cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Ever." Agreed.But also say this:
But people in those categories [outside of the Church] can make an act of Perfect Contrition to God directly before their death can be justified by that actWhen the Dogma is this:
With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin
The problem you face is that you say this:But also say this:When the Dogma is this:
The people in those categories cannot be justified because they are outside of the Church. None of their sins can be remitted
Some of the people who are "outside of the Church" can repent of all of their sins, even if they are not members of the Catholic Church at the time of their repentance. For example, heretics and schismatics.
To do so, they must at least repent directly to God in prayer with perfect contrition. This does not make them members of the Catholic Church in the normal sense, but it does cleanse their soul of the guilt for their sins. After they do this, they become friends of God.
The problem you face is that you say this:But also say this:When the Dogma is this:
The people in those categories cannot be justified because they are outside of the Church. None of their sins can be remitted
No, the problem he faces is that he's a heretic who does not have the Catholic faith. I think you need to stop dignifying that garbage he posts with anything other than an open denounciation of him as a heretic.Yeah..nothing seems to work unfortunately. I'm not sure if I've ever seen seen someone stop denying the dogma after being presented with what the Church teaches...I feel like I'm going insane :confused:
His posts are such a headache inducing blend and amalgam of one illogical emotion-driven emetic nonsense after another, where there's nothing even close to resembling an application of logic to known Catholic teacihng and principles in order to draw conclusions therefrom ... that it's clear evidence of the fact that he simply hates EENS dogma, that he refuses to and will simply not accept the fact that heretics, schismatics, and infidels cannot be saved, and so he'll come up with one thing after another in a desperate hope that some of the crap he throws at the wall might stick long enought so that he can try to absolve himself of heresy, and declare himself to be in good faith. He must be shaken out of that illusion by being told quite simply and bluntly that he's a heretic.
Some of the people who are "outside of the Church" can repent of all of their sins, even if they are not members of the Catholic Church at the time of their repentance. For example, heretics and schismatics.You've got to be kidding me... :facepalm:
To do so, they must at least repent directly to God in prayer with perfect contrition. This does not make them members of the Catholic Church in the normal sense, but it does cleanse their soul of the guilt for their sins. After they do this, they become friends of God.
Some of the people who are "outside of the Church" can repent of all of their sins, even if they are not members of the Catholic Church at the time of their repentance. For example, heretics and schismatics.Again, this denies the Dogma. The Church teaches that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. The Church teaches that there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
To do so, they must at least repent directly to God in prayer with perfect contrition. This does not make them members of the Catholic Church in the normal sense, but it does cleanse their soul of the guilt for their sins. After they do this, they become friends of God.
Again, this denies the Dogma. The Church teaches that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. The Church teaches that there is no remission of sins outside the Church.Yes, it denies the dogma as taught by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam:
If someone's sins are remitted, that means they are inside the Church. It means that they are not heretics or schismatics, because heretics and schismatics are not inside the Church
A heretic or schismatic must cease to be a heretic or schismatic in order to receive remission of sins
More Pelagian-heretical nonsense.
I can't believe the depths of heretical depravity to which you stoop.
Basically you claim that faith isn't even necesary for salvtion (heresy condemned explicitly by Trent), that so long as you repent of yous "sins" (evidently the sin of heresy and schism need not be repented of ... for if they did repent of those they would no longer be heretics and schismatics).
I'm afraid that you have lost the Catholic faith and are completely bereft of it. You need to pray for your own conversion, since if you die in this state, you too are lost, and not just consigned to the non-eternal Hellfires of Purgatory.
IF AND ONLY IF certain heretics and schismatics are invincibly ignorant of the truth to the point that their heresy and schism are not culpable, and if they respent of all their other sins, they can be in a state of justification, but cannot be saved.
It is not required to actively sin against the faith to not have the faith. That's nothing short of Pelagianism, where, so long as you don't actively sin against God, you're saved, i.e. you're saved by default unless you commit actual sin.
You need to stop posting and pray very hard that God will give you the Catholic faith, so that you can convert and save your soul.
Again, this denies the Dogma. The Church teaches that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. The Church teaches that there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
If someone's sins are remitted, that means they are inside the Church. It means that they are not heretics or schismatics, because heretics and schismatics are not inside the Church
A heretic or schismatic must cease to be a heretic or schismatic in order to receive remission of sins
I get more and more dicouraged by what an extreme cesspool of error the entire world and even the entire Tradosphere has become, where 99% of Trads deny the dogma that there's no salvation outisde the Church, half of Trads deny the indefectibilty of the Church in her universal Magisterium and universal discipline, especially the Mass, where people go from one horrible non-Catholic opinion to another, like "lesser evil" and "end justifies the means" having become legitimate Catholic moral principles. I never thought I would live to see the day when the majority of those who self-identy as Trads (because they like chant, incense, and bells?) voted for a pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, pro-genocide, pro-Jєωιѕн, pro-unjust-war candidate for President, who's also a serial adulterer, a moral degenerate, and likely child rapist ... but many even claimed that Catholics have a positive obligation to vote for him. Not only that, but most of them were celebrating, practically popping champagne corks, after Trump's victory ... thereby celebrating and reveling in evil, rather than at least thinking, with heavy hearts, that it was the best choice available (not that it would justify the choice, but at the very least it would render it no cause for celebration). Bishop Sanborn at least admitted that he is "Pro Abortion" and that one is not obliged to vote for him, but he was in the minority even on that, and he did not go far enough, by holding that one was permitted to vote for an evil candidate, i.e. that the end (keeping Biden out of office) justifies the means (voting for Trump). I'm not sure how the Trads who voted Trump can sleep at night, having the blood of innocents all over their hands.I just need a little clarity.
We will be punished as a nation for voting into office such a wicked President, with such evil policies ... and the punishment will be coming very soon.
What you say is absolutely true for "salvation," which means going straight to Heaven without a stop in any other abode after death.That's not what salvation means. Salvation means going to heaven - either directly or thru Purgatory. If you are "saved" it means you get to heaven.
However, not all who are outside the Church will burn in Hell forever and never make it to Paradise.Heresy. Yes, they will.
In fact, even most Catholics will suffer "the fires of Hell" in Purgatory for a long time before entering Paradise.Heresy. Purgatory may be part of hell, but it is temporary. Only catholics go to Purgatory. Hell is eternal.
The point is that there are other temporary places for those non-saved souls are "detained," and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. Aquinas speaks of five places:Heresy. Everything St Thomas describes is attributed to Catholics only.
I might actually have to copy and save out these last few posts just to illustrate how desperate and insane the anti-EENS people are.It is a form of insanity.
Again, this denies the Dogma. The Church teaches that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. The Church teaches that there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
If someone's sins are remitted, that means they are inside the Church. It means that they are not heretics or schismatics, because heretics and schismatics are not inside the Church
A heretic or schismatic must cease to be a heretic or schismatic in order to receive remission of sins
Quote "...although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament is actually received, still this reconciliation is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament, which is included therein."
Some of the people who are "outside of the Church" can repent of all of their sins, even if they are not members of the Catholic Church at the time of their repentance. For example, heretics and schismatics.So you're saying a baptized, heretic is on his deathbed and repents of his heresy? If that's the case, then yes, he *could* be reconciled to the Church and become a member again. I say *could* because (in this hypothetical case) he didn't confess his heresy to a priest but only repented in his heart.
To do so, they must at least repent directly to God in prayer with perfect contrition. This does not make them members of the Catholic Church in the normal sense, but it does cleanse their soul of the guilt for their sins. After they do this, they become friends of God.
So you're saying a baptized, heretic is on his deathbed and repents of his heresy? If that's the case, then yes, he *could* be reconciled to the Church and become a member again. I say *could* because (in this hypothetical case) he didn't confess his heresy to a priest but only repented in his heart.
The error/confusion is your statement that such a repentant heretic wouldn't be a member of the church. Yes, it would. They are already baptized, they are already members. Their heresy makes them outside of the church. If they repented, they would be members again. So, yes, they could be saved.
But...let's make this clear....this would only apply to heretics/schismatics who repent of their heresy/schism. If a heretic repents of his private sins but does NOT repent of his heresy, he is damned.
And...this also does NOT apply to the unbaptized. NO unbaptized person can "repent enough" to gain baptism. They can repent and receive God's forgiveness, but if they die unbaptized, they go to Limbo.
| Aspect | Description | Status of the Person |
| Guilt of Sins (Internal) | Restoration of Sanctifying Grace and forgiveness of mortal sins. | FORGIVEN. Perfect Contrition, by definition, restores the life of grace (justification), placing the soul back into friendship with God. |
| Ecclesiastical Status (External) | Full, visible, and lawful membership in the Catholic Church, including lifting of canonical penalties. | NOT YET RESTORED. The state of heresy/schism and the penalty of excommunication require a formal juridical act of the Church. |
"This reconciliation [by perfect contrition], nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself without a desire of the sacrament, which desire is included therein." (Session XIV, Chapter 4)For the person's sorrow to be perfect (out of love for God), it must include the firm intention and desire to submit to the means God established for reconciliation, which is the Sacrament of Penance administered by a priest with proper faculties.
Don't have any idea what that has to do with my post.
You seem intent on misunderstanding my meaning. The heretics and schismatics that we are talking about are outside of the Church prior to their confession. They then confess, with perfect contrition, directly to God. They make no contact with a Catholic priest and do not rejoin the Catholic Church in any formal, visible way. They then die immediately after this.Supposing this hypothetical has ever happened, the heretic or schismatic would need to cease to be a heretic or schismatic in order to be remitted of his sins. As a heretic or schismatic, he is outside the Church. As he is outside the Church, his sins cannot be remitted. He would need to become a member of the Church (inside the Church) prior to his sins being remitted.
Supposing this hypothetical has ever happened, the heretic or schismatic would need to cease to be a heretic or schismatic in order to be remitted of his sins. As a heretic or schismatic, he is outside the Church. As he is outside the Church, his sins cannot be remitted. He would need to become a member of the Church (inside the Church) prior to his sins being remitted.
In theory I can see this happening by him abjuring his heresy or schism (now no longer a heretic or schismatic), and repenting of his sins with perfect contrition. Those two things may be what could make him a member of the Church again, and then able to be forgiven. So, he would not be outside the Church and would not have his sins remitted outside the Church in this scenario.
Please read the quotes from Gemini that I posted so I don't have to repeat everything.I do not subscribe to any "visible" or "invisible" Church membership theory. That has never been taught by the Church. You are either a member of the Body of Christ or you are not. If you are, your sins can be remitted. If you are not, they cannot be
But in essence, the person would not be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church. He would not have access to the Sacraments and the treasury of graces from indulgences until he came back formally into the Church.
So, in that case, the person would be "justified" in the eyes of God at the moment of his repentance with perfect contrition, but he would still have temporal debt for his sins with no formal way to pay down those debts. If the person then died in that state, what happens to him? Do you think he burns in eternal Hell because he is not a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church?
You said, "The error/confusion is your statement that such a repentant heretic wouldn't be a member of the church. Yes, it would. They are already baptized, they are already members."What is Gemini? Is this AI? :facepalm:
Then I posted the answer from Gemini explaining that the person would not be considered to be a formal, visible member of the Church at the time of their "justification."
But really, I see no good that comes out of these "what if" scenarios. Heretics and Schismatics need to repent now. They do not need to be told that it's possible for them to live their life as a heretic and schismatic and then just make an act of perfect contrition the moment before they die. Personally, I doubt that has ever happened
And...this also does NOT apply to the unbaptized. NO unbaptized person can "repent enough" to gain baptism. They can repent and receive God's forgiveness, but if they die unbaptized, they go to Limbo.Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam appears to rule this out, a least the sin itself being forgiven. If the punishment due to sin can be remitted to the repentant unbaptized, I don't know
I do not subscribe to any "visible" or "invisible" Church membership theory. That has never been taught by the Church. You are either a member of the Body of Christ or you are not. If you are, your sins can be remitted. If you are not, they cannot be
Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam appears to rule this out, a least the sin itself being forgiven. If the punishment due to sin can be remitted to the repentant unbaptized, I don't knowNo amount of repentance can remit Original Sin, except Baptism. But even pagans can repent of PERSONAL sins and be forgiven. If they die in this state, they can go to Limbo.
What is Gemini? Is this AI? :facepalm:
You're reading things from AI, but you do not comprehend. That's your problem.
In your hypothetical situation (i.e. perfect act of contrition) NO ONE KNOWS (exteriorly) that the person repented, because it's between that person and God.
But, in the spiritual realm (i.e. interiorly), yes, that person was reconciled to the Church and became a formal member. You can't be justified OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. Any justification happens ONLY IN THE CHURCH. So if this person repented, HE WAS FORGIVEN BY THE CHURCH and Christ's merits. Thus, he was saved INSIDE THE CHURCH.
---
Now, the distinction comes into play of exterior knowledge vs interior (i.e. God can read hearts). In the case of the above repentant heretic, since the Church CANNOT READ the interior heart, this person would NOT be given a catholic funeral, or be counted among the saints, or be prayed to.
Yes, you are saying that a "member of the Body of Christ" is a person who is a formal, visible member. You do not subscribe to an "invisible membership," right? If so, then the heretic/schismatic in the scenario I presented is OUTSIDE OF the formal boundaries of "the Church," as you define it.You keep saying "formal" and "visible", I have never said that. The Church has never taught that one can be "inside" the Church in any way other than being a member of the Body. Again, in the hypothetical you proposed, those people are no longer heretics or schismatics.
You keep saying "formal" and "visible", I have never said that. The Church has never taught that one can be "inside" the Church in any way other than being a member of the Body. Again, in the hypothetical you proposed, those people are no longer heretics or schismatics.
They cannot be, because heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. They must cease to be heretics or Schismatics in order to be members of the Church and be remitted of their sins
And you are saying that you do believe in an "invisible Membership" in the Church. Your understanding differs from WorldsAway.No, you're using the terminology of Modernists (whether you know it or not) and it's confusing. The idea of "invisible membership" was invented to save non-catholics, pagans, etc. It's related to BOD and universal salvation. It's NOT catholic terminology.
Your last paragraph is correct. He would be treated as OUTSIDE by the Church even though, as you say, he would have been privately/invisibly "reconciled to the Church" before his death. So he would not have a Catholic funeral, making my point that he is not "formally" INSIDE the Church but he would be in a state of "justification" at his death.
Yes, I fully understand what you mean by membership in the Catholic Church. You think "invisible" membership is bogus, right? A person is either a visible member, one recognized by the hierarchy, or he is OUTSIDE of the Church.No, that's not what I'm saying. Someone who is baptised, professes the true faith, and is not a schismatic can make an act of perfect contrition and be forgiven his sins because he is not a heretic or schismatic. That is all I am saying
In the hypothetical situation, the person is OUTSIDE of the Church (using your definition of membership), but he has been "justified" and is "reconciled to God" when he dies. What happens to him?
Yes, I fully understand what you mean by membership in the Catholic Church. You think "invisible" membership is bogus, right? A person is either a visible member, one recognized by the hierarchy, or he is OUTSIDE of the Church.1) if you want to define visible membership as being recognized by the hierarchy, then ok.
In the hypothetical situation, the person is OUTSIDE of the Church (using your definition of membership), but he has been "justified" and is "reconciled to God" when he dies. What happens to him?
No, you're using the terminology of Modernists (whether you know it or not) and it's confusing. The idea of "invisible membership" was invented to save non-catholics, pagans, etc. It's related to BOD and universal salvation. It's NOT catholic terminology.
The hypothetical person died a catholic. They were FORMALLY united to the Church by SPECIFIC repentance for their heresy/schism. They died INSIDE the church. They died as VISIBLE members. Because baptism makes them a formal, visible, inside member. Their repentance rejoins them to the Church, fully and completely.
The modernists use the word "invisible" to say that UNbapized persons can be part of the church, through desire. No, they cannot be.
Then don't use the word "invisible" if it bothers you. We have been talking about baptized people. Heretics and schismatic are baptized by definition. And, by definition, they are outside of the Church because of their heresy and schism.A baptized heretic who repents becomes a visible member of the church, even if only God knows. His rejection of heresy makes him a formal member, once again.
The person who was at heretic/schismatic at the moment before his direct repentance to God and he was known to be such by the Catholics in his town. Maybe he was a well-known Protestant pastor or something. And he died on the way to talk to the Catholic priest. The man would not be given a Catholic funeral because the Catholic priest would not think that he was a member of the Catholic Church.
This has nothing to do with modernism. It has to do with Church membership as that word is used in Canon Law of 1917.
1) if you want to define visible membership as being recognized by the hierarchy, then ok.
2) that would mean that an excommunicated heretic/schismatic is NOT a visible member.
3) we all PRESUME (which is not dogma) that God would remove an excommunication from a repentant sinner, apart from a catholic priest (i.e. hierarchy). We really don't know.
But assuming God would remove such, then that repentant heretic becomes a visible member again, without the hierarchy knowing. Ultimately the term visible/invisible is based on the EXTERIOR knowledge of the Church.
The church does not judge the interior forum, which is why She does not declare that person A died as a heretic and is in hell. She only GENERALLY says that heretics who died unrepentant go to hell.
Also, you shouldn't use the word "justified" apart from the sacrament of baptism. The correct term is, the repentant person died in a state of grace (assuming God forgave them).
A baptized heretic who repents becomes a visible member of the church, even if only God knows. His rejection of heresy makes him a formal member, once again.
The person is not recognized at a member of the Church for he purposes of a funeral (for example). That is what I mean by formal membership. Again, this use of the term is consistent with the way it is used in 1917 Canon Law.The repentant heretic is a formal member. This is just not known exteriorly. The Church only makes decisions based on the external forum.
Your second point that I should not use the word "justified" is absolutely false. Here is the chapter from Trent's Decree on Justification:If you want to be autistic about it, then go ahead.
No, in the scenario we have been discussing, the heretic confesses privately to God with perfect contrition and a desire for the Sacrament of Penance. He is not known by anyone to be a "member of the Catholic Church." At that point, according to the Fathers of Trent, he is in a "state of justification" in the eyes of God.He's a member of the church (again, re-joined) even if no one knows.
If he then gets in his car and attempts to drive to a Catholic Church, but dies before he arrives, he will not be considered to be a member of the Catholic Church by the priest of the Catholic Church. He will not receive a Catholic funeral, as you have already stated above.
The repentant heretic is a formal member. This is just not known exteriorly. The Church only makes decisions based on the external forum.
If you want to be autistic about it, then go ahead.
We agree. A secretly-repentant, formerly-notorious heretic, although he is "justified" in the eyes of God, will not be given a Catholic funeral because the priest or bishop will not consider him to be member of the Catholic Church at the time of his death.The only people who use the term “justified” are those who are talking about Trent/BOD. If you want to continue to use this term, for baptized members, then know that a) you are theoretically correct but b) practically stupid.
But he will be in a state of "justification" at his death.
So, as I have asked over and over again in this thread, where does this person end up after death? Does he go straight to everlasting fires for ever and ever?
No they go to heaven (after purgatory).
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Pope Pius IX Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863
As of right now, I think this is one of the better answers (even though not very precise).
Some of these questions are things we are not meant to know definitively yet, they remain in the field of speculation. But we are also told that we may "proceed no further"
The only people who use the term “justified” are those who are talking about Trent/BOD. If you want to continue to use this term, for baptized members, then know that a) you are theoretically correct but b) practically stupid.
That’s why your questions don’t get answered. You’re being a stubborn, hard-head for using terms which (while technically correct) cause confusion.
The secretly-repentant, formerly heretical justified soul probably does not receive those benefits as Catholics in Purgatory would.Wrong. The secretly repentant die as Catholics. They are 100% members. They are 100% Catholic.
Wrong. The secretly repentant die as Catholics. They are 100% members. They are 100% Catholic.
A Catholic is a full member. Only Catholics go to heaven. Or purgatory.
There is no such thing as a partial Catholic or partial member IN ETERNITY. YOU EITHER DIE AS A 100% Catholic or you die outside the church. There’s no middle ground IN ETERNITY. There is middle ground in this world, because people become confused and tempted. But in eternity, you are either the wheat who is gathered into God's barn or you’re the cockle who is burned.
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Pope Pius IX Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863I think it's pretty weakly worded, but if you actually believe EENS you will not take it to mean that non-Catholics can be saved
Do you want to find some theological or Magisterial backing for those claims? Or should we just take your word for it?
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
PPXI, Mortalium Animos
For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will; and just as the brethren are united by the bond of mutual charity, so it is not fitting that they arouse among themselves injustice and hurt, since the Saviour says, My commandment is that you love one another as I have loved you .
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Sess. 11
For, to be sure, the edifice of the whole church is one, whose foundation was placed by blessed Peter in this See. Many stones are joined for its construction, but all rest on one rock. One is the body of the church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it
Pope Clement XIV, cuм Summi
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
PPXI, Mortalium Animos
For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will; and just as the brethren are united by the bond of mutual charity, so it is not fitting that they arouse among themselves injustice and hurt, since the Saviour says, My commandment is that you love one another as I have loved you .
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Sess. 11
For, to be sure, the edifice of the whole church is one, whose foundation was placed by blessed Peter in this See. Many stones are joined for its construction, but all rest on one rock. One is the body of the church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it
Pope Clement XIV, cuм Summi
Do you want to find some theological or Magisterial backing for those claims? Or should we just take your word for it?What does this even mean? If a heretic rejects his heresy, then he's a catholic again.
I really don't think your quotes address the question directly.You're confusing the Church's GENERAL doctrine of EENS (i.e. those outside the Church go to hell) with Her SPECIFIC attitude towards non-catholics (i.e. She has NEVER declared a SPECIFIC non-catholic PERSON to be in hell).
PV said: "The secretly repentant [heretics] die as Catholics. They are 100% members. They are 100% Catholic."
If we take "Catholic" to mean the state of his soul [the internal forum], then I agree with what he says. But, the Church, using the external forum as its guide, through its practices and its Canon Law, does not provide burial for those thought to be "notorious heretics" at the time of their death.
Canon 1240 (1983 CIC 1184)
§ 1. Unless they gave before death a sign of repentance, the following are deprived of
ecclesiastical burial:
1.° Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or those who notoriously gave their
name to heretical sects or schismatic or masonic sects, or other societies of this sort;
So the Church treats the secretly repentant former heretic as someone "outside the Church." So then take EENS.
Do you use the Church's judgement in the external forum to decide the fate of the dead man? If so, it would seem that you would conclude that the man is in everlasting Hell.
Or do you use the possibility of his secret repentance to decide the fate of the dead man? If so, then you really can't say anything for sure about the eternal state of his soul, even though by all appearances he was outside of the Church. All we can do is follow what the Church law tells us to do and not make firm assumptions about his eternal destination, right?
If the second option is the correct one (and I think it is), we should be careful not to oversimplify the dogma of EENS because it could cause simple people to assume a person who died "outside of the Church" [External Forum] will never make it to Heaven. I think this is why the Canon Law says it is okay to pray privately for those souls, but not publicly.
And as you will remember this was the main point in the Charlie Kirk threads. Certain people were overstepping the boundaries set by the Church. If they had just privately prayed for him, that would have been okay. But instead, they were online advocating to everyone that he was a martyr and Catholic and maybe already in Heaven.
So, as usual, there are two extremes that need to be avoided.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Do you use the Church's judgement in the external forum to decide the fate of the dead man? If so, it would seem that you would conclude that the man is in everlasting Hell.
God is God. If He wants to do secret and hidden things concerning "secret and hidden members" and their salvation - that is really His business, not ours (before someone jumps all over me, I am only using those terms because we lack the definitive theological precision as ruled on by he highest authority concerning this topic - all the nuances, etc.)
Yes, that is an excellent quote. And Pius IX goes far beyond the scenario that I mentioned. Anyone familiar with EENS want to comment on what he said here:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
Do any of the people here think Pius IX taught heresy in that statement? If not, why not? Do all the people commenting on this thread accept the concept of "invincible ignorance" as a limitation of EENS? He seems to open up the possibility that "invincibly ignorant" Pagans could "attain eternal life."
Yes. This is how I understand it as well.Right, theorizing that God would provide the means for the "invincibly ignorant" to become Catholic prior to death is fine
God will always provide the necessary graces for those whom He knows will be saved.
They must enter the Church (in some way) before death, but the answer to how is still in the speculative stages.
(remember I linked you this already: https://archive.org/details/necessityofchurc0000king) (https://archive.org/details/necessityofchurc0000king)
In there you can see clearly that there has been "development of doctrine" on this point and this was ongoing right through Vatican II.
No one should be called "heretic" for holding the same opinions that were tolerated by the Church for centuries w/o being officially condemned.
Neither should one be called "heretic" for choosing NOT to hold those opinions (not saying you did either of those).
It is similar to what happened between the Molinists and Thomists concerning the debate on grace.
The Pope simply said (paraphrasing), "You cannot call each other heretics, both opinions may be tolerated". and he left it at that.
The problem we keep encountering is displayed by what this whole thread has devolved into - the secret and hidden judgments of God and we are, "not allowed to proceed further."
God is God. If He wants to do secret and hidden things concerning "secret and hidden members" and their salvation - that is really His business, not ours (before someone jumps all over me, I am only using those terms because we lack the definitive theological precision as ruled on by he highest authority concerning this topic - all the nuances, etc.)
We will not unravel all the answers to these questions because;
A) Even if we think we have found the definitive answer on all these things - we have no Pope to decide on it, so it still remains just an opinion.
B) Even if we did have a Pope he could just do what he did with the debate on grace and tell us all to "let it alone".
It will always be the true teaching to be saved one must, repent and believe in the Gospel, be baptized and hold/live the faith - and there is, "no salvation outside the Church."
One cannot be obligated to hold these speculative opinions under penalty of the censure of heresy.
Neither can one be obligated to shun them as if they were already condemned.
Anything past that is God's wheelhouse and we will just have to wait for eternity to learn a little more.
There is no contradiction in God, but man is full of and prone to contradiction.
Man rushes to judgement, chops and hacks at his fellows, shows little to no mercy, and thinks himself wise all the while. :facepalm:
So, only the malicious interpret this teaching as some justification of BoD. Pius IX himself during his lifetime got wind of how people were interpreting this, i.e. according to the same interpretation you impose on it here by reading your heretical anti-EENS perspective into it ... and he was furious, denouncing it as wicked slander.
By interpreting it the way you claim, you would make Pius IX a Pelagian, and also a heretical denier of the fact that supernatural faith is required for salvation, that merely not having committed actual sin is tantamount to salvation, having forgotten entirely, as the Pelagians do, about Original Sin.
What he's saying is confirming the principles behind the theory of Limbo, where infants, precisely because they had not committed actual sin are not subject to any eternal punishments. Simply not receiving the Beatific Vision is NOT a punishment, or in Latin even more precisely a poena, or infraction, which always suggests having done something to deserve it.
What he says at the end is almost identical also to what St. Thomas said, that if there is someone out there who's invincibly ignorant and has not committed any actual sins or done anything that would impede the action of God's grace, God would send an angel if necessary to enlighten them. St. Thomas did NOT say they could be saved in that state, since he affirmed that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation ... but in fact indicated that it's SO necessary to have the faith that God would send the angel to instruct this individual in the faith. That's all that Pius IX is saying.
I personally have speculated that in addition to infants being in Limbo, there might be others there, such as unbaptized martyrs, where the martyrdom had washed them of any punishment due to sin, so that they would no longer be liable to punishment for actual sin, and even possibly some others who lived lives consistent with natural virtue, with each soul having a measure of happiness and/or unhappiness that corresponds precisely to the punishment due for their sins or else any virtuous acts that may have served to expiate these, at least in so far as their requiring punishment. This is what St. Ambrose meant by his expression that unbaptized martyrs are "washed but not crowned".
What is your point? I honestly don't get what you're debating.
St Thomas' quote has nothing to do with invincible ignorance. St Thomas explains elsewhere that ignorance is a punishment for sin.
Yes, it has to do with "invincible ignorance." St. Thomas says,The moral law is not the same thing as Divine Law. You're mixing them up together. That's why you're confused.
217. Third, he shows their worth in that they, having not the law, are a law to themselves....
The gentiles (those outside) "having not the law," meaning they are IGNORANT of the divine law, are a "law to themselves," meaning they follow the natural law illumined by divine light of grace. They are "invincibly ignorant" of the divine laws given to the Israelites because they were not given those laws. They lived in China or the New World or whatever.
And they are only culpable for that which they know. They are not culpable for those things that they cannot know are morally wrong. Why? Again, because they are "invincibly ignorant." What they know is what God Himself has shown them.
That doesn't mean that they don't do things that are objectively offensive to God. They almost certainly do. But they don't know any better. The natural law is a very minimalistic set of moral precepts. But if they keep those minimal precepts, then God is happy with them because they are IGNORANT of the full set of moral precepts, the divine law.
Don't worry, the barbarian hordes are not going to overrun the Pearly Gates. Most people do not keep the natural law. Most people (Catholics included) only keep the divine law because they are afraid of going to Hell.
There is NO ONE who DIES invincibly ignorant of the Faith, who lived a life in accordance with the natural law. This is heresy.
No, I am not confused. But you are.You're the one teaching heresy. You just said people can be saved by following the natural law alone :facepalm:
Pius IX said:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
You said: "There is NO ONE who DIES invincibly ignorant of the Faith, who lived a life in accordance with the natural law. This is heresy.
You directly contradict what Pius IX said. You are saying that Pius IX taught heresy. Are you sure you want to say that?
Chapter 3 On faith
Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.
This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be
a supernatural virtue,
by means of which,
with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us,
we believe to be true what He has revealed,
not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason,
but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Faith, declares the Apostle, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen [17].
Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and
first and foremost miracles and prophecies,
which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are
the most certain signs of revelation and are
suited to the understanding of all.
Hence
Moses
and the prophets,
and especially Christ our lord himself,
worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies;
while of the apostles we read:
And they went forth and preached every, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it [18] . Again it is written:
We have the prophetic word made more sure; you will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place [19] .
Now,
although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind,
yet no one can accept the gospel preaching
in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation
without the inspiration and illumination of the holy Spirit,
who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth [20] .
And so faith in itself,
even though it may not work through charity,
is a gift of God,
and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation,
in that a person yields true obedience to God himself when he accepts and collaborates with his grace which he could have rejected.
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
whether by her solemn judgment
or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God [21] and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that
no one can ever achieve justification without it,
neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.
So that we could fulfil our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son,
founded the church,
and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.
To the catholic church alone belong all those things, so many and so marvellous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the manifest credibility of the christian faith.
It's unbelievable that he is trying to say that St. Paul taught that the Gentiles could be saved without the Faith. St. Paul says "For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified." This is not saying that the Gentiles were justified!This is further supported by the preceding and proceeding verses:
Saint Paul literally says "they have not the law". He says they "do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves"
Only the doers of the law are justified..the law which the gentiles do not have! They do by nature things that are of the law (those "things" being the natural law), he does not say that they do the law. (Natural and divine)
2:12 For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the lawThe gentiles are without the law, and they will perish without it. They cannot be saved as they are. Those who have the law will be judged according to the law.
2:15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another,
You're the one teaching heresy. You just said people can be saved by following the natural law alone :facepalm:
Pius IX DID NOT teach that those ignorant will die ignorant. I don't know how many times this has to be said:
Pius IX says that it is a "very grave error" to "believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."
He then speaks about those "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion"...i.e. those living in error, alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity! Those who cannot attain salvation as they are
He then says those observing the natural law, ready to obey God, and living honest lives are able to attain eternal life "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace". Again, if you believe EENS you will take this to mean that God will provide those moral "invincibly ignorant" with the opportunity to hear the Gospel (divine light) embrace the faith and enter the Church (divine grace through baptism)
Belief in the Incarnation and Trinity are necessary for Salvation by a necessity of means. Pope Eugene IV taught this at Florence. The Holy Office repeated it multiple times.
Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council teaches that no one is justified without supernatural faith:
You really must renounce your heresy that someone can be saved by following the natural law alone
It's unbelievable that he is trying to say that St. Paul taught that the Gentiles could be saved without the Faith. St. Paul says "For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified." This is not saying that the Gentiles were justified!
Saint Paul literally says "they have not the law". He says they "do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves"
Only the doers of the law are justified..the law which the gentiles do not have! They do by nature things that are of the law (those "things" being the natural law), he does not say that they do the law. (Natural and divine)
Again, I never said someone can be "saved" by following the natural law alone. You said that. You really should be careful what you accuse people of. I said what Pius IX said,Stop twisting Pope Pius IX's words
"Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."
Where do you think the "invincibly ignorant" as described by Pius IX go the moment they die? Remember, God's "supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
And also remember that only Saints go straight to Heaven. Purgatory is a place of punishment for temporal debt still owed. Where is the place for those "not guilty of deliberate sin" who are not Saints. Well, we have one example of the limbo of Children, those infants were "not guilty of deliberate sin." But Pius IX is talking about the "invisibly ignorant" above the age of reason. Again, where do they go?
Now you are just lying. I quoted Aquinas and highlighted an underlined the phrase (look back at my prior post). I'll make it red now so you can't miss it:Okay, so you are using the gentiles following the natural law prior to the institution of the Church to support your heresy that persons can be saved in their invincible ignorance?
Hence by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the law by the help of Christ’s grace. Or by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in a psalm: there are many who say, ‘who shows us good things?’ The light of your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us (Ps 4:6), i.e., the light of natural reason, in which is God’s image. All this does not rule out the need of grace to move the affections any more than the knowledge of sin through the law (Rom 3:20) exempts from the need of grace to move the affections.
It is clearly established from this same epistle [to the Romans], chap. 3 and 4, that no one is justified without faith in Christ.
...
For in the first part of his epistle [to the Romans] he wished to show the necessity of the Christian faith, without which no man can be justified before God, whether he is a gentile or a Judean.
...
For when the Apostle says the doers of the Law shall be justified, he speaks of those who observe the whole Law. For, as stated in James 2, 'He who offends in one point has become guilty of all.' However, in this passage [Romans 2:13-15] the Apostle does not teach that gentiles, who do not have the Law, by nature observe the whole Law; but he says that they show that the work of the Law has been written in their hearts when they do things that belong to the Law, that is, when they perform something according to the rule of the Law.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book 5, Chapter 2
Stop twisting Pope Pius IX's words
Pius IX DID NOT teach that those ignorant will die ignorant. I don't know how many times this has to be said:
Pius IX says that it is a "very grave error" to "believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."
He then speaks about those "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion"...i.e. those living in error, alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity! Those who cannot attain salvation as they are
He then says those observing the natural law, ready to obey God, and living honest lives are able to attain eternal life "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace". Again, if you believe EENS you will take this to mean that God will provide those moral "invincibly ignorant" with the opportunity to hear the Gospel (divine light) embrace the faith and enter the Church (divine grace through baptism)
Your last sentence is just silly. That is not what Pius IX is talking about. You are interpreting the Pope (incorrectly) as saying that the people he refers to will become Catholic before they die
Now, it is logically impossible to claim that those people discussed in the second section (the invincibly ignorant) are NOT outside of the Church when they die. Why? Because they are described as "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion." Both groups of people described are outside of the Catholic unity. Neither group is Inside the Church at their death as you try to claim.
So, both groups are non-Catholic and die in that state. But the first group dies in a state of culpable "error," while the second group dies "not guilty." Again, this make perfect sense because, although both are not Catholic, the first group cannot "arrive at eternal salvation" because of its culpable error, while the second group can "attain eternal life" because they are not culpable.
And you still haven't answered by question that I have now asked you at least 4 times: Where do the "invincibly ignorant" who die Outside the Church go immediately after they die?
Okay, so you are using the gentiles following the natural law prior to the institution of the Church to support your heresy that persons can be saved in their invincible ignorance?
Regardless, Aquinas, because he was Catholic, believed that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was necessary for salvation. He believed it so faithfully that he posited God sending an angel to instruct the invincibly ignorant of the truths of the Faith in order that they may be saved
Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.
It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Nope. Pius IX says those invincibly ignorant who "are struggling", present tense. They are able to attain eternal life, because God can provide the means necessary.
Pius IX taught that they will be afforded the means to attain salvation. So, not invincibly ignorant when they die.
So you think St. Paul is giving a history lesson about "the gentiles?" Read more closely. Pay attention to verb tenses. If you are not familiar with the importance of verb tenses, maybe you should not be arguing with me and calling me a heretic?Okay, so you're not applying those verses to Gentiles prior to the institution of the Church.
Then you bring up the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. Are you drunk? That is exactly what the doctrine of "invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion" excludes.
Pius IX says those people who do not know about the Trinity or the Incarnation, through no fault of their own, are not going to be punished. Why? Because they are not culpable for not knowing such things. It is not their fault that a Catholic priest did not penetrate the Amazon jungle before they died. But they were required to cooperate with divine grace and follow the natural law (a rare feat). And if they do that, they will "attain eternal life."
You should really just read the Athanasian Creed taught by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence:
Read it
Believe it
Profess it
Yes, a person who is aware of the Catholic faith (i.e., one that is not invincibly ignorant) must believe the Catholic faith to be saved. Duh. We are discussing people who, for whatever reason, have not heard about the Catholic faith."Whoever wills to be saved"
Okay, so you're not applying those verses to Gentiles prior to the institution of the Church.
Pius IX writing a letter to the Italian hierarchy is doctrine now? And I'm drunk? :smirk:
Read the Athanasian, believe it, profess it
Yes, God provided the "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" and the invincibly ignorant person cooperated with that divine grace until he died. Why can't you understand this?A "development of the dogma" which modifies the Dogma in such a way that the Dogma no longer teaches what it originally taught is not "valid", it is "heretical". We are to believe the Dogma as the Church "has once declared". What the Church "once declared" (at least 8 times, actually) is that there is no salvation Outside of Her and outside of the Catholic Faith
You are denying that Pius IX taught that "invincible ignorance" slightly modifies the original understanding of EENS. This is a valid development of the dogma. Anyone can look that up very quickly and see that your "interpretation" is bogus.
Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.The ignorant who follow the natural law go to Limbo. They do not gain heaven. The invincibly ignorant are not saved. But they are also not damned. That’s what Limbo is - a middle state.
Ah, so your new angle is that Pius IX was not speaking ex Cathedra, so we should ignore what he said. What do the theologians say about the matter?Well, I did modify my post, but you must have already been replying
And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. Where do the "invincibly ignorant" go immediately after they die?
The ignorant who follow the natural law go to Limbo. They do not gain heaven. The invincibly ignorant are not saved. But they are also not damned. That’s what Limbo is - a middle state.
If you are claiming that is the Church's teaching can you please provide a source?
Not comparable. The OT fathers went to the Limbo of the Just. They weren’t invincibly ignorant of Divine Law because they had the OT rites.
A native Indian who is invincibly ignorant in the New Testament (or even the OT) would go to limbo, as part of hell. But it’s a natural paradise with no suffering.
The OT limbo of the just, was a temporary place for those who had Faith in the redeemer, and they were eventually baptized and made heaven. The limbo of the just no longer exists. As the OT is over.
Which is exactly what I suggested in my first post on this topic. They are in a similar state that the "Fathers" were before Christ came. They did not yet know Christ because they were invincibly ignorant of him. They only understood him though the shadows of the OT Scriptures.Well, not quite. You didn't just suggest a "limbo", you said this:
What you say is absolutely true for "salvation," which means going straight to Heaven without a stop in any other abode after death. No one, who is not a baptized member of the Church has the chance "to benefit from the ecclesiastical sacraments and fasting, almsgiving and other offices of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery that bring forth eternal rewards." These things prepare the white garment of the soul. And they are only available to Catholics.
However, not all who are outside the Church will burn in Hell forever and never make it to Paradise. In fact, even most Catholics will suffer "the fires of Hell" in Purgatory for a long time before entering Paradise.
The point is that there are other temporary places for those non-saved souls are "detained," and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. Aquinas speaks of five places:
The "Limbo the Fathers" was also called "Abraham's Bosom." It held people, like Abraham, who came before the divine law was given to Moses. It is exactly comparable to the pagans who do not have knowledge of the divine law but do have the natural law enlightened by divine grace.Abraham was NOT A PAGAN! !!! God promised to send the Redeemer to Adam and Eve. Belief in the Redeemer was part of the OT religion. Abraham believed in the coming redeemer. Pagans did not.
You say, "not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise".Also, this is the most explicit, word-for-word denial of the Dogma that I have ever seen from someone claiming to be Catholic. And that is saying something
Pope Eugene IV says, "all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels"
See the contradiction?
Well, not quite. You didn't just suggest a "limbo", you said this:
This is what is heretical, because the Dogma "as once declared" (~8 times) is there is no salvation outside the Church or the Faith. No salvation meaning just that. As declared, no salvation.
You say, "not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise".
Pope Eugene IV says, "all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels"
See the contradiction?
Also, this is the most explicit, word-for-word denial of the Dogma that I have ever seen from someone claiming to be Catholic. And that is saying something
Angelus is literally saying the exact opposite of what has been defined.
Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...will go into the everlasting fire
Angelus: not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever
Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life
Angelus: not all who are outside the Church...will never make it to heaven
I mean, c'mon man
Abraham was NOT A PAGAN! !!! God promised to send the Redeemer to Adam and Eve. Belief in the Redeemer was part of the OT religion. Abraham believed in the coming redeemer. Pagans did not.
Again, you could replace the word Angelus above, with Pius IX. Are you saying that he denied the dogma?Angelus, you make Pius IX into a heretic by claiming he taught what he did not actually teach. What you claim he teaches contradicts Church Dogma as it has "once been declared" (again, ~8 times). So, please, stop.
Angelus, you make Pius IX into a heretic by claiming he taught what he did not actually teach. What you claim he teaches contradicts Church Dogma as it has "once been declared" (again, ~8 times). So, please, stop.
Read what the Church has infallibly taught regarding salvation first, and then apply it to what Pius IX taught. You will not misintepret him that way. You are going in the opposite order, taking your misinterpretation of Pius IX and applying it to Church Dogma. That is what leads to what you originally posted in this thread, which was a word-for-word denial of the Dogma. Please, read what has infallibly been taught regarding EENS. We must keep the faith "whole and undefiled" or we will, without doubt, perish eternally
. You can't be justified OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. Any justification happens ONLY IN THE CHURCH. So if this person repented, HE WAS FORGIVEN BY THE CHURCH and Christ's merits. Thus, he was saved INSIDE THE CHURCH.Just to derail a bit, that means justification by desire or justification by bƖσσdshɛd does not occur.
---
And...this also does NOT apply to the unbaptized. NO unbaptized person can "repent enough" to gain baptism. They can repent and receive God's forgiveness, but if they die unbaptized, they go to Limbo.So is this unbaptised person justified since they go to limbo?
As I've tried other explain to you, Pius IX and I have not misinterpreted the dogma.
Just to derail a bit, that means justification by desire or justification by bƖσσdshɛd does not occur.
Earlier you saidSo is this unbaptised person justified since they go to limbo?
As I've tried other explain to you, Pius IX and I have not misinterpreted the dogma. You have. Those who are "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" AND who follow "the natural law... illumined by divine light and grace" in their moral actions, will not "suffer eternal punishments." Those are the exact words of Pius IX.
That does not mean that there will be many people "attain eternal life" in the way the Pius IX describes. I don't know for sure, of course. But I would guess there are very few people. Think of Abel and Lot and Noah. Very, very few men live their lives in the way required by the "invincible ignorance" teaching.
2 Corinthians 4:3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum
For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
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.”
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.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope St. Pius V, Bull excommunicating the heretic Queen Elizabeth of England, Feb. 25, 1570: “The sovereign jurisdiction of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, has been given by Him [Jesus Christ], unto Whom all power in Heaven and on Earth is given, the King who reigns on high, but to one person on the face of the Earth, to Peter, prince of the Apostles... If any shall contravene this Our decree, we bind them with the same bond of anathema.
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.
Abraham lived prior to the revelation of the divine law, given to Moses. He and people of the Age of the Patriarchs (aka Fathers) lived according to the natural law illumined by the divine grace. The pagans who are/were "invincibly ignorant of our holy religion," the Catholic faith, AND also live/lived according to the natural law illumined the divine grace.By Divine Law, you mean Moses and the 10 commandments? You think the Israelites and others before Moses didn’t know about the moral law?
As Pius IX said, "Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency does not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
For the last time, Pius IX did not teach what you think he did. If he did teach what you think he did, he would have taught heresy. But he didn't. Pius IX said of "those who are struggling with invincibly ignorance about our most holy religion" that they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace". As they are ("struggling" in invinc. ignorance, or, "living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity") they cannot attain salvation, but they are able to do so because God will provide the means for them to be instructed in the faith. Pius IX did not deny the Dogma:
The Dogma, "once declared" infallibly:
And other Popes on EENS:
IF, God forbid, Pius IX taught what you say he did, you would have to REJECT IT. What you THINK Pius IX taught IS CONTRARY TO THE DOGMA.
You misinterpret his words, insist that this misinterpretation creates some "slight modification" to the Dogma, a "valid" "development" of the Dogma, yet you end up DENYING THE DOGMA WORD-FOR-WORD
Pope Eugene IV says, "all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels"
You say, "not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise".
Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...will go into the everlasting fire
Angelus: not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever
Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life
Angelus: not all who are outside the Church...will never make it to heaven
READ WHAT THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT. BELIEVE IT AS "ONCE DECLARED". PROFESS IT AS "ONCE DECLARED" OR YOU CANNOT BE SAVED
These are questions that it might be worth discussing among those of good will here to believe the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS, and we should stop wasting our time on trolling heretics like Angelus.
Just as St. Thomas Aquinas fully articulated the distinction between natural punishment / natural happiness, rooted in justice, and supernatural beatitude in the Kingdom, something above human nature, which, being owed to no one and not required for happiness, there would be no injustice in not granting it, since it's a completely free gift ...
similarly, I believe that there's confusion between a natural justification and a supernatural one, where infants in Limbo, for instance, are not in a "state of grace", meaning that they do NOT possess the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity (where of course only charity remains in eternity, as the Holy Ghost teaches through St. Paul).
Since these innocent souls have committed no actual sin, they are not in a state of enmity with God, which is usually what's contrasted with justification, except that what people often mean by justification is ... being in a state of grace, and they're not in that state either. So they're neither justified nor non-justified. They're in a sort of natural friendship with God, where they believe in Him, obey Him, assent to His truths and to the law He has written in their hearts (the natural law) ... in a natural way only, since they do not and cannot have supernatural faith and supernatural charity.
So when Pax says there can be no justification except in the Church, he's assuming the definition where justification means being in a state of grace and having the supernatural virutes, in which sense he's correct. BUT ... that does not mean there can't be a certain NATURAL type of justificaiton, a natural friendship with God. That is where the post-Tridentine theologian Melchior Cano, OP stated that infidels can be justified but not saved, where he's referring to a type of justification that can be achieved short of having the supernatural virtues, since infidels, lacking faith, cannot have the supernatural virtues. Theologians who discussed Trent on Justification stated that there are natural virtues they they call "fides initialis", "caritas initalis", "spes initialis", which are in fact natural analoguest to the respective supernatural virtues, and they can in fact develop these natural virtues, the natural equivalents of the supernatural ones by the same name, nay, they MUST develop these natural virtues in order to be led to the very point of receiving the SUPERNATURAL ones, which then only happens at the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which confers the supernatural virutes ex opere operato. So while these natural virute are necessary dispositions to receive the freely-given unmerited supernatural equivalents, they do not somehow natural lead to, transition into or somehow merit the gift of the supernatural ones.
As I have tried to tell you over and over again, the Dogma of EENS hinges on a single concept: culpability of the actor.No, your #2 is wrong. Salvation = a reward.
1. A culpable actor is punished. A non-culpable actor is not punished. Meditate on that.
2. Salvation means saved from punishment...all punishment.
3. A person "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" is NOT culpable for not joining that holy religion.
4. So, EENS in its proper understanding does not apply to those "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" precisely because they are innocent. Innocent people do not get punished.
5. But "salvation" in Catholic theology is through Christ alone. So a person who does not know Christ cannot be "saved."
6. But this does not prevent someone who does not know Christ, through no fault of their own, from going to an eternal abode that is both free of punishment but still lacking the fullness of the Beatific Vision. That place is a variation on the concept of Limbo. That was the purpose of Abraham's Bosom in the OT, and Aquinas says nothing prevents that from still existing after Christ.
So, it is not necessary to gut or destroy EENS in order to fit the "invincibly ignorant" into Catholic theology. They are not "saved" in the sense immediately seeing the Beatific Vision. That is reserved for Saints alone. But they are not punished, because just like infants burdened with original sin through no fault of their own, these "invincibly ignorant" people above the age of reason are burdened with original sin through no fault of their own.
In the years prior to 1492, there was no Catholic priest who visited the Western Hemisphere. So your idea that God is going to send the pagans a priest is impossible. That is clearly not what Pius IX was suggesting. He is not stupid.
So EENS stands firm, even with the notation on the "invincibly ignorant" attached to it. Invicible ignorance does not apply to the enormous number of "vincibly ignorant" people in our day to ignore the Gospel.
By Divine Law, you mean Moses and the 10 commandments? You think the Israelites and others before Moses didn’t know about the moral law?
You're denying God's revelation to Adam/Eve of a coming Redeemer, which ALL THE FATHERS knew of, prior to Moses. Adam, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
These were not pagans or comparable to pagans. You should be ashamed.
No, your #2 is wrong. Salvation = a reward.
a. Hell = punishment
b. Limbo = no punishment, no reward
c. Heaven = reward
These are questions that it might be worth discussing among those of good will here to believe the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS, and we should stop wasting our time on trolling heretics like Angelus.Yeah, my understanding is there are 2 types of justification. Natural and supernatural. A pagan can repent and be forgiven. They are naturally justified. A Catholic confesses to a priest and they are supernaturally justified (ie state of grace). Which is why I asked Angelus to stop using “justification” for Catholics and use “state of grace”. But he won’t. Because he likes to play word games. That’s how he keeps his conscience quiet due to his mental gymnastics.
Just as St. Thomas Aquinas fully articulated the distinction between natural punishment / natural happiness, rooted in justice, and supernatural beatitude in the Kingdom, something above human nature, which, being owed to no one and not required for happiness, there would be no injustice in not granting it, since it's a completely free gift ...
similarly, I believe that there's confusion between a natural justification and a supernatural one, where infants in Limbo, for instance, are not in a "state of grace", meaning that they do NOT possess the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity (where of course only charity remains in eternity, as the Holy Ghost teaches through St. Paul).
Since these innocent souls have committed no actual sin, they are not in a state of enmity with God, which is usually what's contrasted with justification, except that what people often mean by justification is ... being in a state of grace, and they're not in that state either. So they're neither justified nor non-justified. They're in a sort of natural friendship with God, where they believe in Him, obey Him, assent to His truths and to the law He has written in their hearts (the natural law) ... in a natural way only, since they do not and cannot have supernatural faith and supernatural charity.
So when Pax says there can be no justification except in the Church, he's assuming the definition where justification means being in a state of grace and having the supernatural virutes, in which sense he's correct. BUT ... that does not mean there can't be a certain NATURAL type of justificaiton, a natural friendship with God. That is where the post-Tridentine theologian Melchior Cano, OP stated that infidels can be justified but not saved, where he's referring to a type of justification that can be achieved short of having the supernatural virtues, since infidels, lacking faith, cannot have the supernatural virtues. Theologians who discussed Trent on Justification stated that there are natural virtues they they call "fides initialis", "caritas initalis", "spes initialis", which are in fact natural analoguest to the respective supernatural virtues, and they can in fact develop these natural virtues, the natural equivalents of the supernatural ones by the same name, nay, they MUST develop these natural virtues in order to be led to the very point of receiving the SUPERNATURAL ones, which then only happens at the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which confers the supernatural virutes ex opere operato. So while these natural virute are necessary dispositions to receive the freely-given unmerited supernatural equivalents, they do not somehow natural lead to, transition into or somehow merit the gift of the supernatural ones.
As I have tried to tell you over and over again, the Dogma of EENS hinges on a single concept: culpability of the actor.You beg the question that anyone at all who follows the natural law dies invincibly ignorant. That is not what Pius IX said. Aquinas proposed that they will be instructed in the faith prior to death
2 Corinthians 4:3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
10:15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things?
10:16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report?
10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.
10:18 But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily: Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the whole world.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren, beloved of God, your election:
1:5 For our gospel hath not been unto you in word only, but in power also: and in the Holy Ghost and in much fulness, as you know what manner of men we have been among you for your sakes.
1:6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord: receiving the word in much tribulation, with joy of the Holy Ghost:
1:7 So that you were made a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia.
1:8 For from you was spread abroad the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and in Achaia but also in every place: your faith which is towards God, is gone forth, so that we need not to speak any thing.
Colossians 1:4 Hearing your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have towards all the saints.
1:5 For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel,
1:6 Which is come unto you, as also it is in the whole world and bringeth forth fruit and groweth, even as it doth in you, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.
Colossians 1:23 If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven: whereof I Paul am made a minister.
Acts 2:47 Praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved
You beg the question that anyone at all who follows the natural law dies invincibly ignorant. That is not what Pius IX said. Aquinas proposed that they will be instructed in the faith prior to death
At the time of the apostles it was taught that the Gospel had been preached to the ends of the Earth:
You deny the Dogma:
Pope Eugene IV: "all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels"
You: "not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise"
You say those who die outside the Church can "make it to paradise". "Paradise" is the Kingdom of Heaven, the Beatific Vision. None of those outside of the Church can partake in it
Read the Athanasian creed as "once declared", believe it, and then profess it.
You must convert to the Catholic Faith if you wish to be saved
Yeah, my understanding is there are 2 types of justification. Natural and supernatural. A pagan can repent and be forgiven. They are naturally justified. A Catholic confesses to a priest and they are supernaturally justified (ie state of grace). Which is why I asked Angelus to stop using “justification” for Catholics and use “state of grace”. But he won’t. Because he likes to play word games. That’s how he keeps his conscience quiet due to his mental gymnastics.
Angelus, your fundamental error is that you believe that “avoiding hell” means “gaining heaven”. Wrong. Unbaptized babies (the most invincibly ignorant of all) do not gain heaven but do avoid hell. They go to Limbo. Same thing applies to ignorant adults.
Heaven is a gift and also a reward. Those who gain heaven are 1) given the gift of Faith and 2) earn merits by fighting (ie church militant). And God reward them for their efforts.
The ignorant were not given the gift of Faith, therefore they did not have to fight, ergo they didn’t earn any merits and they gain no reward. But they will not be punished either. So they go to Limbo.
Why do you feel the need to lie? I never said "that anyone at all who follows the natural law dies invincibly ignorant." Here is my exact quote:
"Those who are "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" AND who follow "the natural law... illumined by divine light and grace" in their moral actions, will not "suffer eternal punishments." [https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1010037/#msg1010037]
You may not realize that the word AND acts as a logical conjunction of the two thoughts. Therefore, in order to avoid "eternal punishments" the person must be BOTH "invincibly ignorant" AND "follow the natural law"...illuminated "by divine light and grace."
You must understand the "natural law," Thomistically understood, is not supernaturally barren. The "natural law" is defined as human reason participating in God's eternal law. So it contains a supernatural element. But Pius IX makes this explicit to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation by those who would call his teaching Pelagianism.
And you really can't be serious. Do you really think at the time of the Apostles the Gospel had already been preached to the "ends of the Earth?" You might want to check with the Church teaches on that. Have you ever heard of Jesus's Olivet Discourse in which he states that just before his Second Coming the Gospel "shall be preached in the whole world and then shall the consummation come (Matthew 24:14)."
Yes, Pope Pius IX is very clear.
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Note that the people he is talking about are not invincibly ignorant like some native on a desert island. Rather, the people are normal, have intellect, knows how to think and are intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with their invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means the people he is talking about are sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion. He is not talking about those incapable of thinking, nor is he saying those invincibly ignorant of our holy religion can be saved invincibly ignorant of our holy religion.
A Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life can't be saved, nor can anyone who dies outside of the Church. However, a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life *and* is sincerely seeking, trying to find out about the truths our holy religion (The pope calls this: "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".) will assuredly enter the Church - *provided* they correspond to the graces offered. If they do enter the Church, then like all Catholics, they are "able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" - because they have entered the Church. Contrary to common misunderstanding of his teaching, the pope never says anyone invincibly ignorant will be saved.
Why do you feel the need to lie? I never said "that anyone at all who follows the natural law dies invincibly ignorant." Here is my exact quote:Right, you're saying they are invincibly ignorant and illumined by divine light and grace. So, like I said, you are claiming they die invincibly ignorant
"Those who are "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" AND who follow "the natural law... illumined by divine light and grace" in their moral actions, will not "suffer eternal punishments." [https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1010037/#msg1010037]
You may not realize that the word AND acts as a logical conjunction of the two thoughts. Therefore, in order to avoid "eternal punishments" the person must be BOTH "invincibly ignorant" AND "follow the natural law"...illuminated "by divine light and grace."
You must understand the "natural law," Thomistically understood, is not supernaturally barren. The "natural law" is defined as human reason participating in God's eternal law. So it contains a supernatural element. But Pius IX makes this explicit to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation by those who would call his teaching Pelagianism.
not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise
And you really can't be serious. Do you really think at the time of the Apostles the Gospel had already been preached to the "ends of the Earth?" You might want to check with the Church teaches on that. Have you ever heard of Jesus's Olivet Discourse in which he states that just before his Second Coming the Gospel "shall be preached in the whole world and then shall the consummation come (Matthew 24:14)."It is an infinitely more tenable position than your heresy those who die outside the Church can be saved, so yes. Our Lord is speaking of the Fall of Jerusalem here, not just His Second Coming. This actually strengthens my point. The Gospel had been preached to the ends of the world, as it is written in Scripture, by the time of the fall of Jerusalem
Wrong. To posit a kind of purely "natural justification" and oppose it to "supernatural justification" is Pelagianism.:facepalm: Trent also speaks of two types of Faith. Natural Faith in god, which, when combined with human repentance for sins, is NECESSARY to prepare one for baptism. Then, in baptism, one receives SUPERNATURAL FAITH and SUPERNATURAL LOVE OF GOD.
Here is the Canon from the Decree on Justification from Trent:
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Check it yourself. Which you could have easily done before posting anathematized nonsense:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm
No, I do not believe that "avoiding hell" ONLY means "gaining heaven." Although it certainly means that for the Saints. The Saints receive the pinnacle of all rewards. They BOTH avoid punishment AND they enter the beatific vision. That is "Salvation" properly understood.Infants don't go to Abraham's bosom. They go to Limbo, not the OT 'Limbo of the Just'. 2 different places.
Of course babies go to Limbo. I brought up Limbo 8 pages before you finally clued in that a type of Limbo (formerly known as Abraham's Bosom) is the answer to the problem that I posited earlier about the "invincibly ignorant" adults. You keep repeating what I have already said.
Please read what I said before posting these things. Don't rely on other people's false interpretation of what I said. That is the honest thing to do.
No, I do not believe that "avoiding hell" ONLY means "gaining heaven."Yeah, you do. You literally said (#2) that salvation = avoiding punishment. This is too generalized and wrong.
"Those who are "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" AND who follow "the natural law... illumined by divine light and grace" in their moral actions, will not "suffer eternal punishments."Angelus, how does one who is ignorant, stay ignorant AFTER they are illuminated by divine light and grace? Answer: They don't stay ignorant.
Right, you're saying they are invincibly ignorant and illumined by divine light and grace. So, like I said, you are claiming they die invincibly ignorant
You can twist yourself into a pretzel all you want, you word for word denied the Dogma in your first post:
"Erm, but I actually proposed limbo for them, but I also said they can be saved, but not like 'salvation' saved, but actually yes salvation but not like the Saints salvation, because only those who go straight to heaven can be said to have 'salvation', but those who die outside the Church can make it to paradise, but not like actual paradise, but they can also get to heaven, but remember I actually said limbo so you're wrong to call me a heretic".
You're ridiculous
It is an infinitely more tenable position than your heresy those who die outside the Church can be saved, so yes. Our Lord is speaking of the Fall of Jerusalem here, not just His Second Coming. This actually strengthens my point. The Gospel had been preached to the ends of the world, as it is written in Scripture, by the time of the fall of Jerusalem
Do you genuinely believe that the Gospel has not been preached in the whole world yet? We're just waiting on, like, Sentinel Island or something?
| Feature | Earthly Paradise (Eden) | Heaven (Beatitude) |
| Nature | Created, Physical, and Temporal. The state of humanity before the Fall. | Uncreated, Spiritual, and Eternal. The final destiny of humanity. |
| Happiness Level | Natural and Supernatural Gifts. A state of initial, perfect grace on earth. | Supernatural End. The highest form of perfect and absolute happiness. |
| The Core Reward | The Tree of Life and perfect fellowship with God in a physical place. | The Beatific Vision—the direct, immediate sight of God's Essence. |
| Inhabitants | Adam, Eve, and traditionally, the translated(Enoch and Elijah). | The Saints, Angels, and all the Blessed. |
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed jus1tly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in2to your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”3
(4Luke 23:39–43, ESV)
:facepalm: Trent also speaks of two types of Faith. Natural Faith in god, which, when combined with human repentance for sins, is NECESSARY to prepare one for baptism. Then, in baptism, one receives SUPERNATURAL FAITH and SUPERNATURAL LOVE OF GOD.
Natural justification comes from human sorrow for sins, which all men can have. But the unbaptized, being they do not have the supernatural gifts of faith, hope and charity, are UNABLE TO HAVE PERFECT LOVE OF GOD, nor can they make a PERFECT act of contrition, because they do not yet have SUPERNATURAL CHARITY/LOVE of God, which can ONLY be gotten through Baptism.
Natural justification is similar to imperfect contrition for sins.
Infants don't go to Abraham's bosom. They go to Limbo, not the OT 'Limbo of the Just'. 2 different places.
Yeah, you do. You literally said (#2) that salvation = avoiding punishment. This is too generalized and wrong.
Angelus, how does one who is ignorant, stay ignorant AFTER they are illuminated by divine light and grace? Answer: They don't stay ignorant.
The Pope is telling us that those who follow the natural law will be illuminated by divine light/grace (AND CONVERT), which is why they won't suffer eternal punishments.
He didn't "spell it out" because it's assumed (based on the adage of "grace builds on nature") and based on scripture that God enlightens those who are of good will.
You're arguing that an ignorant person can be illuminated by God and still be ignorant. :confused::confused::confused:
The problem is you apparently think Paradise = Heaven. This is your error. Paradise is absolutely not Heaven.Wrong. Abraham's Bosom was a TEMPORARY PLACE.
In reality, Paradise = Limbo of the Fathers = Abraham's Bosom
Those "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" are just that INVINCIBLY ignorant. You and Stubborn and WorldsAway want to make that person's ignorance into VINCIBLE ignorance. No, that won't work.An ignorant person does not stay ignorant AFTER being illuminated by Divine grace. :facepalm: You're ignoring what the pope says.
The invincibility of their ignorance remains invincible up to their death. There will not be some Catholic priest who swoops in and explains the faith to them and baptizes them. If that would be the case, the person would not be in the logical category of people that Pius IX is talking about. Those people would suffer from ignorance that is VINCIBLE (overcome able) before they die. That is not who Pius IX refers to.
Did I say that enough ways for you to understand? Pay attention to the definitions of the words used and you will understand, hopefully.
Now, finally, I think I might have a clue why don't understand me. You don't understand what "paradise" is.Abrahams Bosom was "Paradise" because Christ descended into it. Because of Christ's presence. Christ is not present in any region of Hell now, or ever again. No one, in any region of Hell, is in "Paradise" now, or ever again.
You quoted my words below (which I stand by 100% BTW):
"not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise"
Then you went on a rant, mocking me:
"Erm, but I actually proposed limbo for them, but I also said they can be saved, but not like 'salvation' saved, but actually yes salvation but not like the Saints salvation, because only those who go straight to heaven can be said to have 'salvation', but those who die outside the Church can make it to paradise, but not like actual paradise, but they can also get to heaven, but remember I actually said limbo so you're wrong to call me a heretic".
To be clear, I never said they went to Heaven. At least I don't remember saying that. If I said it, it was a mistake. But I certainly said that they go to paradise. And paradise is just another name for the Limbus Patrum or Abraham's Bosom.
The problem is you apparently think Paradise = Heaven. This is your error. Paradise is absolutely not Heaven.
In reality, Paradise = Limbo of the Fathers = Abraham's Bosom
However, not all who are outside the Church will burn in Hell forever and never make it to Paradise. In fact, even most Catholics will suffer "the fires of Hell" in Purgatory for a long time before entering ParadiseYou say those outside the Church can enter Paradise, you say Catholics enter Paradise. Crazy
Yes, those outside the Church who remain in their state of sin by rejecting Christ and His Church at the time of their death "cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Ever." Agreed"Those categories" being Pagans, Jews, Heretics, Schismatics. You say they can all be justified by an act of perfect contrition and enter Heaven, after their sins are expiated
But people in those categories can make an act of Perfect Contrition to God directly before their death can be justified by that act. They will not go to Heaven directly. They will need to expiate their sins. Where do they do that?
Don't worry, the barbarian hordes are not going to overrun the Pearly Gates. Most people do not keep the natural law. Most people (Catholics included) only keep the divine law because they are afraid of going to HellI suppose "Pearly Gates" here doesn't mean "heaven" either. "Most people", meaning some do.
Yes, a person who is aware of the Catholic faith (i.e., one that is not invincibly ignorant) must believe the Catholic faith to be savedYou make no distinction between the manner of "saved" a Catholic is, and the alleged manner of "saved" the invincibly ignorant can be
I think it would be the most fitting abode for the "invincibly ignorant" until Christ's Second Coming, as Abraham's Bosom performed a very similar function prior to Christ's Resurrection.You say the invincibly ignorant will only be in the "limbo" until Christ's Second Coming. And then compare Abrahams Bosom to it as a "very similar function". Those in Abraham's Bosom went to Heaven after the Resurrection. What is the conclusion a normal person would draw from what you're saying here? Where do you think those alleged "invincibly ignorant" go after Christ's Second Coming?
Because as Pius IX says those with "invincible ignorance about our most holy religion...are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."You misinterpret Pius IX, and believe that the invincibly ignorant can die while invincibly ignorant about the Church and Faith and attain eternal life. "Eternal life", oh, that's the Beatific Vision, as has always been taught. So you do believe they can be "saved"
So these gentiles (those outside) were converted to the faith (justified) not by hearing about religious laws, whether true ones or false ones. Rather, by were converted to the true faith (justified) by the grace of Christ helping them to obey the natural law written on their hearts.
They voluntarily cooperated with the divine grace. It doesn't matter what religion they may have been surrounded by. God chose those people and gave them special graces to come to the true faith. Note he did not say they came to the Church. Remember, these people are described as gentiles (those outside).
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlastingThose justified become heirs according to hope of life everlasting
2 Corinthians 4:3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost
Wrong. Abraham's Bosom was a TEMPORARY PLACE.
In the context of the 4 last things - death, judgement, heaven, hell....paradise = heaven.
Even if you argue that Abraham's bosom = paradise, then ALL THOSE who went there, ended up in heaven. So Abraham's Bosom = heaven (eventually).
As i've told you before, when the concept of "Limbo" was discussed (related to infants dying before baptism), they were NOT talking about Abraham's bosom, which was STRICTLY for the OT Fathers. The new testament as "Limbo" as a permanent state, which is the upper parts of hell.
Abraham's bosom is temporary for OT. "Limbo" is permanent for new testament.
I'm not entertaining your BS anymore
Abrahams Bosom was "Paradise" because Christ descended into it. Because of Christ's presence. Christ is not present in any region of Hell now, or ever again. No one, in any region of Hell, is in "Paradise" now, or ever again.
You say those outside the Church can enter Paradise, you say Catholics enter Paradise. Crazy
"Those categories" being Pagans, Jews, Heretics, Schismatics. You say they can all be justified by an act of perfect contrition and enter Heaven, after their sins are expiated
I suppose "Pearly Gates" here doesn't mean "heaven" either. "Most people", meaning some do.
You make no distinction between the manner of "saved" a Catholic is, and the alleged manner of "saved" the invincibly ignorant can be
You say the invincibly ignorant will only be in the "limbo" until Christ's Second Coming. And then compare Abrahams Bosom to it as a "very similar function". Those in Abraham's Bosom went to Heaven after the Resurrection. What is the conclusion a normal person would draw from what you're saying here? Where do you think those alleged "invincibly ignorant" go after Christ's Second Coming?
You misinterpret Pius IX, and believe that the invincibly ignorant can die while invincibly ignorant about the Church and Faith and attain eternal life. "Eternal life", oh, that's the Beatific Vision, as has always been taught. So you do believe they can be "saved"
You cannot even deny that you actually believe such people can enter Heaven (Or the Kingdom of God, or Paradise, or enjoy the Beatific Vision, etc.), because you believe they can be justified. Your words:
Trent, on Justification:
Those justified become heirs according to hope of life everlasting
Or should we play some more word games and say Trent doesn't mean Heaven, the Beatific Vision, when it says 'life everlasting"?
Read the Athanasian Creed. Believe it. Profess it
"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."
The "invincibly ignorant" who, despite their invincible ignorance, you believe can "attain eternal life" (some would call this "saved"), do not hold the Catholic faith. They cannot even will to be saved as they are, while alive
I'm not entertaining your BS anymore
1) St Thomas isn't infallible. 2) who goes to Abraham's bosom and who goes to "normal" limbo? 3) Or is St Thomas saying that Abraham's bosom remains a place, but uninhabited, like the Garden of Eden?
Yeah, this guy needs to be cut off. He's woven together such an intricate tapestry of bullshit to justify his heresy that in order to save face he literally has to specify "Hell" (a term every Catholic knows what it means) as "everlasting Hell" ... since in his bizarro world there's a temporary Hell also, and then he redefined the term salvation or being "saved", another term that all Catholics know what it means, as going directly to Heaven without stopping over in Purgatory. If you go to Purgatory first, then you're not saved.
He's had to warp basic terms like "Hell" and "salvation" by redefining them into something other than what they had long ago meant in order to keep his heresy on some kind of life support.
1) St Thomas isn't infallible. 2) who goes to Abraham's bosom and who goes to "normal" limbo? 3) Or is St Thomas saying that Abraham's bosom remains a place, but uninhabited, like the Garden of Eden?Please answer 2 and 3.
Please answer 2 and 3.
2) Abraham's Bosom is simply another name for the Limbus Patrum, the Limbo of the Fathers. It is also a synonym of the earthly Paradise that Jesus spoke of to Dismas. And it is also the place where Enoch and Elijah are believed to be (Aquinas). I can't answer your question because I don't know what you mean by "normal limbo." Read Aquinas. I gave you the link. Maybe you will learn something from him.Normal limbo = St Thomas' (and other's) Limbo of infants (questions 70 and 71). It is a separate place (the upper part of hell) than Abraham's bosom.
3) St. Thomas did not have any strong personal conviction about whether Abraham's Bosom remained after Christ. But he said "nothing prevents" it from remaining, or at least the place the serves the same purpose.
The bottom line is that our conversations on these mysteries is somewhat speculative. The Church has not ruled one way or another. Different people are allowed to have different opinions. It is clearly not heretical simply to posit the possibility of these abodes continuing to exist and being populated. Aquinas himself does that very thing.
Normal limbo = St Thomas' (and other's) Limbo of infants (questions 70 and 71). It is a separate place (the upper part of hell) than Abraham's bosom.
The point being, Normal/infant limbo is part of hell (i.e. it is eternal). On the contrary, EVERYONE who went to Abraham's bosom eventually went to heaven. It is temporary.
No, there is no contradiction. Because as Pius IX says those with "invincible ignorance about our most holy religion...are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." And God's "supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."Divine light and grace refers to baptism/the Catholic faith. The very same Pope has a another docuмent where he uses the same terminology and makes it more clear. You are choosing to interprete his words in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching, this is modernism and uncharitable to the Pope.
It is not heretical for me to say it, just as it was not heretical for Pius IX to say it.
Divine light and grace refers to baptism/the Catholic faith. The very same Pope has a another docuмent where he uses the same terminology and makes it more clear. You are choosing to interprete his words in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching, this is modernism and uncharitable to the Pope.
Divine light and grace refers to baptism/the Catholic faith. The very same Pope has a another docuмent where he uses the same terminology and makes it more clear. You are choosing to interprete his words in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching, this is modernism and uncharitable to the Pope.
Oh, it's more than uncharitable to Pope Pope Pius IX ... it's downright slander and it makes him out to be a Pelagian. We'll need to find the article (I forgot who wrote it it .... might even have been Fr. Feeney) where it docuмents the reaction of Pope Pius IX to these slanders. To say that someone could be save MERELY due to lack of actual sin, that not being punished suffices for salvation ... THAT IS PELAGIAN HERESY. Period. Invincible ignorance and lack of actual sin are MERELY EXCULPATORY but CANNOT BE SALVIFIC. In order for salvation to be possible, supernatural faith is required (dogmatically taught by Trent, so this interpretation is herestic on those grounds as well). And that is where "divine light and grace" factor in. What Pius IX is saying is not Pelagian heresy, but that God WILL provide His divine light and grace for salvation to those who are invincibly ignorant and who have committed no actual sin. This is precisely what St. Thomas taught. Pope Pius IX does not specific HOW God might provide the divine light and grace, whether by some interior illumination or, as St. Thomas taught, by sending an angel from Heaven to communicate those truths that must be explicitly believed for salvation, which St. Thomas held to be at minimum the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. But the perinacious Pelagian heretic here (trying to smear Pope Pius IX with his own heresies) believes that ignorance and lack of actual sin can actually be salvific, that invincible ignorance can save ... and not a few Trad clergy have actually muttered this heretical absurdity. That's tantamount to a denial of Original Sin, since the Church teaches that you cannot be saved even if you have Original Sin alone (without having committed actual sin), and again that you must have supernatural faith in order to be saved (dogmatically taught at Trent and many other places), and the minimum truths necessary to be believed explicitly in order to even make supernatural faith possible are the core mysteries regarding the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
Divine light and grace refers to baptism/the Catholic faith. The very same Pope has a another docuмent where he uses the same terminology and makes it more clear. You are choosing to interprete his words in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching, this is modernism and uncharitable to the Pope.
In those docuмents, Pius IX is consistently saying three things:
1. He is referring to souls that die in their "ignorance of the true religion."
2. He is saying that these ignorant souls are "outside of the Church."
3. He is saying that EENS does not apply to those with "invincible ignorance about our most holy religion."
Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20). Although it is not within our power to know matters of faith by ourselves alone, still, if we do what we can, that is, follow the guidance of natural reason, God will not withhold from us that which we need.
Yes, your highlighted quote above is almost exactly what Pius IX is saying. But you left out a few words. I'll fix it for you:
What Pius IX is saying is not Pelagian heresy, but that God WILL provide His divine light and grace [by way of the Natural Law] for salvation to those who are invincibly ignorant and who have committed no actual sin.
"invincible ignorance" was just about the last thing that should have been discussed in the mid-late 19th century regarding EENS. Who would this even have been applied to at the time? What lands did not yet have the Faith? What was actually needed was yet another ex cathedra definition of EENS, probably in the most definite terms to date, as EENS denial was already rapidly spreading. Unfortunately, Pius IX referencing the "invincibly ignorant" is the very thing that gave the EENS deniers ammunition to run wild with their heresy. We see the fruit of "invincible ignorance" being referenced, and an explicit EENS affirmation not happening, now with near universal EENS denial among Catholics.The term "invincible ignorance" should be completely abandoned as it means those people who are incapable of thinking at all, such as those who are in some way brain injured.
At no point does he say "EENS does not apply", you filthy liar.Yeah, and he believes this to be a "valid" "development of doctrine" regarding EENS.
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses
[...]
that
there are seven sacraments of the new law,
truly and properly so called,
instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and
necessary for salvation
[...]
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God
Angelus, EENS is a doctrine.Doctrine?
You're a lying and slandering heretic, and despite having been repeatedly correct your remain pertinacious in your herest, and the grave sins of both slander and of spreading heresy.
At no point does he say "EENS does not apply", you filthy liar.
No, Pius IX most certainly does not teach Pelagian heresy, you filthy scuм ... but you attribute Pelagian heresy to Him.
You inject your [by way of Natural Law] interpretation into what He says to render him a Pelagian heretic, since simply adhering to the natural law is NOT SALVIFIC. There MUST BE SUPERNATURAL FAITH, and living by the natural law cannot and does not blot out Original Sin, since that can be done by Christ's Redemption.
You don't even believe in a Baptism of Desire. There's no reference to any kind of Baptism whatsoever in your heretical soteriology. So here you commit yet another heresy, by holding that salvation can be had without the Sacraments.
You inject your heretical intepretation by your own admission (in Hellish red font) above, adulterating the meaning of Pope Pius IX and turning him into a Pelagian heretic. If you claim that somoene can earn his way to salvation merely by following the natural law, without any supernatural faith, thereby expunging and overcoming Original sin by your own following of natural law, thereby rendering Our Lord's Redemption entirely superfluous -- there are at least half a dozen heretical propositions floating around in this diseased mind and soul of yours.
You deny Original Sin ... Pelagian heresy ... and claim that you can be saved so long as you do not commit ACTUAL sins, by your own power, without any supernatural faith, merely by following the natural law.
You clearly don't even know what Pelagian heresy is.
At this point, you are diabolically possessed as you continue to promote your vile heresy.
"invincible ignorance" was just about the last thing that should have been discussed in the mid-late 19th century regarding EENS. Who would this even have been applied to at the time? What lands did not yet have the Faith? What was actually needed was yet another ex cathedra definition of EENS, probably in the most definite terms to date, as EENS denial was already rapidly spreading. Unfortunately, Pius IX referencing the "invincibly ignorant" is the very thing that gave the EENS deniers ammunition to run wild with their heresy. We see the fruit of "invincible ignorance" being referenced, and an explicit EENS affirmation not happening, now with near universal EENS denial among Catholics.
The term "invincible ignorance" should be completely abandoned as it means those people who are incapable of thinking at all, such as those who are in some way brain injured.
When speaking about the salvation of souls, the term "invincible ignorance" should be replaced with the correct term used by Pope Pius IX; "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Yeah, and he believes this to be a "valid" "development of doctrine" regarding EENS.
This is exactly what Pope Pius IX condemned at the Vatican Council:
Angelus is saying that, regarding what "has once been declared by holy mother Church" (that there is no salvation outside of Her and the Faith), there is a "more profound understanding" of the Dogma that began in the mid-19th century..which caused the Dogma to no longer mean what it had always meant
What Pope Pius IX himself professed at the Council:
does not actually mean what it says. And, get this, the Vatican Council was after this so-called "valid" "development" of EENS is alleged to have occured
So every time the Church had declared that there is no salvation outside of Her and no salvation outside of the Faith (including at Vatican One) what She actually meant was that there is some salvation outside Her, and some salvation outside of the Faith
Angelus, EENS is a doctrine. Those who die ignorant of the Church will not be saved. They will not enter paradise or heaven. At best, they go to Limbo, which is part of hell. But they don’t suffer, except the loss of seeing God.
But they will be in Limbo, FOR ALL ETERNITY. Period. They will never enter heaven. If you say otherwise, you’re denying EENS and are a heretic. You also deny Trent 10 different ways.
I said nothing about his motive.
We have almost 200 years of hindsight now. We can look at what has happened to EENS over that time. I'm sure he never imagined this would happen
Your misinterpretation of him is the mistake.
Angelus, for the 4th time, please answer…how do the invincibly ignorant REMAIN ignorant AFTER God gives them divine grace and illumination?
I explained how the "divine light and grace" comes into the soul in a person who "observes the natural law."What is the purpose of this “divine light”? These people already know the natural law (all men do). They already follow their conscience, using actual graces.
And of course, your statement that Pius IX teaching should be "completely abandoned" are fully consistent with your Old Catholic ecclesiology.You abandoned PPIX's teaching by posting that he was talking about people incapable of thinking.
Stubborn gets to decide what is dogma or not. Stubborn gets to edit Pius IX's teaching. Hopefully others on this thread will see the connection.
And you are so sloppy in your thinking that you think Pius IX is talking about "brain injured" people. No, Stubborn, Pius IX said they people are "invincibly ignorant about our most holy religion." They are not necessarily ignorant about anything else. Nor are they "brain injured."
What is the purpose of this “divine light”? These people already know the natural law (all men do). They already follow their conscience, using actual graces.
So if the the only thing they are ignorant of, is of the church, then what KNOWLEDGE does “divine light” bestow upon them?
——-
The traditional, orthodox view is that a sincere, natural-law-follower will be given “divine light” in regards to THE FAITH/CHURCH. This is what St Paul tells us. God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth (ie Christ/Church).
You are saying that a natural-law-follower will be given “divine light” about…?what?
You say they aren’t given knowledge about Christ or the Church, because they stay ignorant. So what is the purpose of this “divine light”?
Christ is God. All things about Him are Divine. The Church is Christ's Bride and is Divine. How does a “divine light” not contain truths about Christ or His Church?
Divine light is essentially supernatural knowledge. Christ/Church are the essential parts of supernatural knowledge. How can God give “divine light” which IGNORES the truths of Christ/Church?
You abandoned PPIX's teaching by posting that he was talking about people incapable of thinking.
I said to abandon the term "invincibly ignorant" and replace it with what he said - you accuse me of saying contrary to what I said, I said I want to replace that term with what he said: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
You either have a serious lack of reading comprehension, or you are deliberately guilty of calumny.
Yes. I apologize. I did not read your post correctly or completely. Mea culpa.(https://i.imgur.com/udnmMcu.png)
| Feature | The Natural Law Statement (Descriptive) | Garrigou-Lagrange's Approach (Technical) |
| Source of Grace | Implies the Natural Law itself provides the light/grace. | Clearly distinguishes between Natural Law (which is merely preparation/disposition) and Supernatural Grace (which is the effective cause). |
| Role of Will | Focuses on the person's seeking the truth. | Focuses on God's Antecedent Will (to save all) and the need for the human will to make a supernatural act of faith (even if implicit). |
| Mechanism | Describes the illumination simply as "divine light." | Explains the illumination as the gift of Actual Grace that leads to the act of Implicit Faith in the Redeemer (the votum Ecclesiae). |
| Necessity of Christ | Grace is accessible, but the link to Christ is implicit. | Explicitly defends that this grace is the merit of Christ and is dispensed by the Holy Spirit, thus maintaining the sine qua non(necessary condition) of Christ's mediation. |
Yes, all men with the use of reason are not ignorant of the natural law. But very few men follow the "natural law" properly. Here are some examples:Divine Law = church law, but you seem to be defining it as something else. And then you distinguish between Divine Law and the sacraments, which are the same thing. :confused::confused::confused:
1. Anyone who denies that there is a God who created this world does not follow the natural law.
2. Anyone who uses body parts for sɛҳuąƖ pleasure outside of the act of procreation does not follow the natural law.
3. Anyone who kills an innocent human being, like a fetus, does not follow the natural law.
It is not limited to just those cases. But you can see that in our society almost everyone ignores the natural law.
The "divine light and grace" is the natural law itself. It is not a super BRIGHT light. It is not an OVERPOWERING grace. It is a subtle guide to those who are sincerely trying to do God's will as best they can. God gave that to all of humanity.
The Divine Law provides the BRIGHT light. The sacraments provide the OVERWHELMING grace. Those are only available to those who are in the Church. But to who much is given much more is expected. Since those who are "invincibly ignorant about our most holy religion" are given less, less is expected of them in moral matters. But they also should expect a lesser reward. The beatific vision is the highest reward. They don't receive that. But they also don't receive punishment in Hell if, through no fault of their own, they are outside the Church.
And the other corrollary to all of this is that Catholics who cannot claim to be "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" will be held to a much higher moral standard. They can be punished in Purgatory even for venial sins. Those "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" are held to a lower standared than us.
Divine Law = church law, but you seem to be defining it as something else. And then you distinguish between Divine Law and the sacraments, which are the same thing. :confused::confused::confused:
| Law | Characteristics | Relationship to Sacraments |
| Old Law (Law of the Old Testament) | Preparatory and Imperfect. Contained moral precepts (Decalogue), ceremonial precepts, and judicial precepts. | Contained Sacramentals (e.g., sacrifices, circuмcision) that signified grace but did not contain or cause it. They were foreshadowing Christ. |
| New Law (Law of Grace, or Evangelical Law) | Perfect and Substantial. Given by Christ, it primarily consists of the grace of the Holy Spirit infused into the heart. | Includes the New Law Sacraments which are the instruments by which the interior grace of the Holy Spirit is outwardly communicated to man. |
There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.
[The 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
This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved,
This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be savedHe, and the Church, did not actually mean "no one"
For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faithHe, and the Church, did not actually mean "no one at all"
With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
In this discussion I have been talking about the part of the Divine Law that makes up the moral code because we were talking about someone who is "outside the Church" anyway. But yes, the Sacraments are also included in the Divine Law, according to Aquinas.Exactly. The natural law is not Divine Law. The Divine Law is concerned with religion. If a person follows the natural law, they don't get "illuminated by divine grace" to follow the natural law....they're already doing that. You are using circular logic. No one needs to be "illuminated by divine grace" to follow the natural law, because...the natural law is written on all men's hearts (so says scripture).
According to Aquinas, does the divine law include the sacraments?
In his comprehensive framework laid out in the Summa Theologiae, the Sacraments are considered an essential part of the New Law (or Law of Grace), which is the final and most perfect form of Divine Law revealed by God.
Here is how Aquinas structures the relationship:
1. Divine Law vs. Natural Law
Aquinas always distinguishes between laws derived from human reason (Natural Law, Human Law) and laws revealed directly by God (Divine Law):
Natural Law: The human participation in the eternal law, known by the light of reason (e.g., "do good and avoid evil").
- Divine Law: Law directly revealed by God to guide man to his supernatural end. This is divided into the Old Law and the New Law.
2. The Divisions of Divine Law
Divine Law is split into two historical phases:
Law Characteristics Relationship to Sacraments Old Law (Law of the Old Testament) Preparatory and Imperfect. Contained moral precepts (Decalogue), ceremonial precepts, and judicial precepts. Contained Sacramentals (e.g., sacrifices, circuмcision) that signified grace but did not contain or cause it. They were foreshadowing Christ. New Law (Law of Grace, or Evangelical Law) Perfect and Substantial. Given by Christ, it primarily consists of the grace of the Holy Spirit infused into the heart. Includes the New Law Sacraments which are the instruments by which the interior grace of the Holy Spirit is outwardly communicated to man.
3. The Sacraments as Instruments of the New Divine Law
Aquinas places the Sacraments squarely within the New Law because they are the necessary means for the administration of the grace that is the very essence of that Law.
1. The Grace of the Holy Spirit is the chief element of the New Law.
- 2. The Sacraments are the sensible signs and causal instruments appointed by God to convey that grace.
In his treatise on the Sacraments (Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 60 onwards), Aquinas confirms that they are instituted by Christ and pertain to the sacramentals of the New Law, making them an integral and necessary part of the external precepts and practices of Divine Law.
Exactly. The natural law is not Divine Law. The Divine Law is concerned with religion. If a person follows the natural law, they don't get "illuminated by divine grace" to follow the natural law....they're already doing that. You are using circular logic. No one needs to be "illuminated by divine grace" to follow the natural law, because...the natural law is written on all men's hearts (so says scripture).
Thus, if a natural-law-follower is illuminated by "divine grace" then the ONLY conclusion is that they will be illuminated to find the True Faith, which is the Divine Law.
The fact of the matter is that if anyone believes Pius IX to have "developed" the Dogma in such a way that EENS now "excludes" the "invincibly ignorant", who are admittedly "outside of the Church", then they make the Church, and the Popes who solemnly defined EENS, into liars
So when Pope Innocent III, at the Fourth Lateran Council, taught:
He, and the Church, did not actually mean "nobody at all"
And when Pope Eugene IV, at Florence, taught:
He, and the Church, did not actually mean "all those who are outside the Church" will go into the "everlasting fire"
When Pope Pius IX, at the Vatican Council, taught:
He, and the Church, did not actually mean "none can be saved"
And when Pius IV, at Trent, taught:He, and the Church, did not actually mean "no one"
When Pope Leo X, at Fifth Lateran, taught:He, and the Church, did not actually mean "no one at all"
And when Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctam, taught:
He, and the Church, did not actually mean for "every human creature" it is "absolutely necessary for salvation" be "subject to the Roman Pontiff"
Your argument is with the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas), not me. And the Divine Law also includes the moral precepts of the Decalogue, as you would have seen if you had read the AI answer in my post before this one.You keep switching around terms and confusing yourself.
I already explained all of this in this earlier post:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1010254/#msg1010254
Here is the key part from Aquinas, where he explains the connection of the Natural law to the Divine Light:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q91.A2 (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q91.A2)
I answer that, As stated above (Q90, A1, ad 1), law, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, insofar as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (A1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, insofar as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, insofar as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Ps 4:6): Offer up the sacrifice of justice, as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: Many say, Who showeth us good things? in answer to which question he says: The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us: thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.
You keep switching around terms and confusing yourself.
1. The natural law = moral code = decalogue = 10 commandments.
2. All men have the natural law written on their hearts. All humans intuitively know right/wrong (i.e. 10 commandments).
3. This knowledge is "divine light" but it's given to all men, at birth.
So when Pope Pius says that "divine light" will be given to those that FOLLOW the natural law, this "divine light" is EXTRA. It is ADDITIONAL to that which with men are created. It is MORE than what is given at birth.
You're saying that men are given "divine light" at birth, i.e. natural law. And then, if they follow the natural law, they will be given MORE "divine light" about...the natural law.
No, you're wrong. You have circular reasoning.
If men follow the natural law, they will be given "divine light" about religion/Faith, so as to convert. They already have EVERYTHING THEY NEED about natural law, at birth.
As usual, you are the one who is confused. The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) are NOT IDENTICAL TO the Natural Law.:facepalm: Wrong. The 10 commandments were RE-given by God to Moses, to re-enforce the law that is already on men's hearts. They are the same.
Yes, the Natural Law is written on hearts. The Decalogue was written on STONE TABLETS.
I am not wrong. You don't understand the different categories of moral precepts.
"This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved"
[T]hat meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
:facepalm: Wrong. The 10 commandments were RE-given by God to Moses, to re-enforce the law that is already on men's hearts. They are the same.
| Precept Type | Decalogue Precepts | Identity with Natural Law |
| Moral Precepts Related to Men | Commandments 4 through 10 (e.g., against murder, theft, adultery, false witness). | Identical. The obligation is known directly by reason (Natural Law). |
| Moral Precepts Related to God | Commandments 1, 2, and 3(Worship and Sabbath/Lord's Day). | Not Identical. The general obligation is known by reason, but the specific manner and time (Sabbath/Sunday) are positive determinations added by Divine Law. |
Question: Are the moral precepts of the Decalogue identical to the moral precepts of the Natural Law?Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
Answer: No, they are not entirely identical.
The moral precepts of the Decalogue are not identical to that of the Natural Law, because the Decalogue includes two distinct types of precepts:
Precept Type Decalogue Precepts Identity with Natural Law Moral Precepts Related to Men Commandments 4 through 10 (e.g., against murder, theft, adultery, false witness). Identical. The obligation is known directly by reason (Natural Law). Moral Precepts Related to God Commandments 1, 2, and 3(Worship and Sabbath/Lord's Day). Not Identical. The general obligation is known by reason, but the specific manner and time (Sabbath/Sunday) are positive determinations added by Divine Law.
The Third Commandment (Sabbath/Lord's Day)
The obligation to keep the Sabbath holy is the primary reason the two sets of precepts are not fully identical:
Natural Law Obligation (Moral Essence): Reason tells us that we must offer external worship to God and dedicate time for that worship.
- Decalogue's Addition (Positive Determination): The Decalogue determines that this time must be the seventh day (the Sabbath). This specific timing is a positive command from God (Divine Law), not a conclusion that reason can arrive at on its own.
Therefore, the Decalogue contains an element (the specific scheduling of worship) that adds a positive, determined requirement to the general, necessary moral requirement found in the Natural Law. This makes the two sets of precepts not absolutely identical.
Heretics will attempt to gaslight you into believing that "every human creature", "no one at all", "all", and "none" do not actually mean what they mean.
Heretics will also attempt to gaslight you into believing that for 1800 years every Pope and Council, when solemnly defining the Dogma, simply failed to mention such an important "exception", leading the faithful to erroneously believe it to mean..well, exactly what it says
To anyone of good will:
Popes and Councils, when solemnly defining EENS, have never, not once, made any exception. The very words used exclude any exceptions.
Pope Pius IX himself, who some heretics claim "developed" the Dogma to exclude the "invincibly ignorant", inexplicably failed to include this "development" at the Vatican Council, when he said:
It should also be noted that the above was said after the alleged "development" of the Dogma is said to have occured. With such an important "development" having occured, it seems strange that it would not be, for the first time, taught to the universal Church
And we read the same Pope Pius IX, teaching at the Vatican Council:
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
So...if a person follows the natural law (commandments 4-10) then "divine light" will illuminate them on the rest of the commandments (i.e. 1-3), right?
And what do commandments 1-3 revolve around? Religion.
And if God enlightens a person that they have to worship Him alone, and no strange gods, then what?
And if God enlightens a person that they have to keep holy the "lord's day" then what?
Then this natural-law-follower has the OBLIGATION to seek out a) what is the lord's day? b) how do I worship God properly?
These are all matters of DIVINE LAW, which means they concern the CHURCH and FAITH. Which means, the person is no longer invincibly ignorant. Because God enlightened them on requirements...
And if they KEEP SEARCHING and PRAYING, they will find the Catholic Faith.
Heretics will also attempt to gaslight you into believing that literally every single time the Dogma has been solemnly defined, it was defined in "short form" only. Where the "long form" has been solemnly defined to be believed by the Universal Church, we may never know
You mental model is all wrong. You think the exception makes excuses for people who could do something about their "ignorance" and overcome it. That is not what Invincibility means.:laugh1: Ok, now you're switching up the argument because your previous argument failed. In your example above, the 10 year old, who was of good-will, would be "enlightened by divine light", no? That's what the pope says. That's what you said.
Let me ask you, what if you were a child living in some remote area of Tibet in the Himalayas. Your parents were Buddhists. No Catholic priest or missionary had ever been to your village. No one had ever heard of the Catholic Church. Then you, the child, dies as the age of ten years old (above the age of reason). Prior to your death, you never violated any of the moral precepts of the Natural Law, and you sought to do the divine will as best you were taught by the Buddhists around you.
Where do you think you would end up after death? Do you think you would burn in Hell for eternity even though you committed no faults?
:laugh1: Ok, now you're switching up the argument because your previous argument failed. In your example above, the 10 year old, who was of good-will, would be "enlightened by divine light", no? That's what the pope says. That's what you said.
And if they are enlightened by divine light, then they would be enlightened to the FULL divine law (i.e. commandments 1-3). That's what the pope says.
Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge...does not mean exactly what is says. That "No person can be saved" does not actually mean "no person can be saved"
On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?...means that a person may be "saved", if their ignorance is invincible. For some reason, they believe that ignorance of what is necessary for salvation is somehow meritorious. Pius IX teaches that they will not be punished for not doing what they do not know. What Pius IX rightly does not say is that they will be rewarded for not doing what they do not know
let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted."...and posits that those "invincibly ignorant" may be saved in their ignorance. In other words, he "[seeks] to penetrate further"
"The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God....because if we were to believe what the heretic claims, which is that, immediately after Pius IX taught that the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith", he also teaches that the invincibly ignorant can attain salvation in their invincible ignorance, then Pius IX would be contradicting himself:
Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."Of course, Pius IX doesn't contradict himself. If what Pius IX said immediately prior to this is true, which it is, we take this to mean that the "hope" that the invincibly ignorant can have for salvation is only through the Christian Faith. As the "invincibly ignorant" do not know the Christian Faith, we must take this to mean that they will come to know the Christian Faith at some point in their life..because as Pius IX literally just said, the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian Faith".
They are given divine light in order to continue to keep the natural law precepts so long as they cooperate with divine grace.We keep going around in circles.
Heretics will attempt to say that this......does not mean exactly what is says. That "No person can be saved" does not actually mean "no person can be saved"
They will then attempt to say that this......means that a person may be "saved", if their ignorance is invincible. For some reason, they believe that ignorance of what is necessary for salvation is somehow meritorious. Pius IX teaches that they will not be punished for not doing what they do not know. What Pius IX rightly does not say is that they will be rewarded for not doing what they do not know
The heretic also ignores this part......and posits that those "invincibly ignorant" may be saved in their ignorance. In other words, he "[seeks] to penetrate further"
The heretic attempts to say that when Pius IX taught this, he did not mean exactly what he said......because if we were to believe what the heretic claims, which is that, immediately after Pius IX taught that the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith", he also teaches that the invincibly ignorant can attain salvation in their invincible ignorance, then Pius IX would be contradicting himself:Of course, Pius IX doesn't contradict himself. If what Pius IX said immediately prior to this is true, which it is, we take this to mean that the "hope" that the invincibly ignorant can have for salvation is only through the Christian Faith. As the "invincibly ignorant" do not know the Christian Faith, we must take this to mean that they will come to know the Christian Faith at some point in their life..because as Pius IX literally just said, the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian Faith".
The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith
...
Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
The heretic is not able to reconcile his heresy with what PPIX taught:
Q. What is the only hope of salvation for mankind?
A. The Christian Faith
Q. Can one outside the Church hope for salvation?
A. No, unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control
Q. Is he who is excused through ignorance beyond his control a part of mankind?
A. Yes
Q. What is the only hope of salvation for mankind, again?
A. The Christian Faith
So was Pius IX a heretic? Or was he contradicting himself intentionally? If not (and he certainly was not), why did he include these caveats when he discussed EENS?No, he was not a heretic and he did not contradict himself. That is what you unfathomably cannot seem to understand
The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith
Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
2 Corinthians
4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not.
4:2 But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God: but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God.
4:3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost,
4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord: and ourselves your servants through Jesus.
4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus
Mark 16:15 And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
No, he was not a heretic and he did not contradict himself. That is what you unfathomably cannot seem to understand
He said:
He then says:
If those who are invincibly ignorant can hope for salvation, and the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian Faith, then you just have to put two and two together. Their hope for salvation is in the Christian Faith!
God will provide the means for salvation (the Catholic faith and baptism) to those struggling with invincible ignorance! If they believe and are baptised they will be saved, if they do not believe they will be condemned
If you believe that people can die invincibly ignorant, fine..but I don't see how that can be reconciled with what Pius IX actually taught. If you believe that some may not suffer the pains of hell, but will experience some happiness similar to the infants in limbo, okay. But they are not "excluded" from EENS. The Church has always taught "Salvation" to be the Beatific Vision, Heaven. No one who dies outside the Church can experience that.
The invincibly ignorant do not go to heaven, ever. They don’t see God. They don’t partake of the lot of the saints. They go to limbo, forever. End of their story.
The New Heaven and New Earth is the end of the story for the non-reprobate. This is after the disembodied souls enter the beatific vision. This is when those disembodied souls are united with their glorified bodies at the General Judgement.Limbo is the upper, upper part of hell, because the main punishment of hell is loss of God, which the ignorant lose. There is ZERO chance the ignorant go to heaven. There is ZERO chance anyone in heaven won’t see God.
And The New Heaven and New Earth occurs when Heaven comes down and merges with Earth. Apocalypse 21:
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more. 2 And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new.
This is right after the General Judgement. After the GJ, the people in "Limbo" (or whatever you want to call it) will enter the NHNE as well. They do not go to eternal Hell. And there are only two abodes after the GJ: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan.
Limbo is the upper, upper part of hell, because the main punishment of hell is loss of God, which the ignorant lose. There is ZERO chance the ignorant go to heaven. There is ZERO chance anyone in heaven won’t see God.
Limbo is the upper, upper part of hell, because the main punishment of hell is loss of God, which the ignorant lose. There is ZERO chance the ignorant go to heaven. There is ZERO chance anyone in heaven won’t see God.
OK, so here you completely trip yourself up. Those in Limbo are NOT PUNISHED, and those in Limbo HAVE NOT LOST GOD simpliciter. They do not receive the Beatific Vision, which is a free gift of God, which our created nature can't begin to comprehend, as it's beyond the capacity of our nature, but in no way is deprivation of the Beatific Vision a punishment This is what St. Thomas articulated regarding Limbo, and it's also what Pope Pius IX was talking about in terms of how God will not permit those who have not committed actual sin to be punished. St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in those passage you should know quite well, since it's where he rejects Baptism of Desire, talks about how there are those who are not bad enough to be punished, but not good enough to be glorified, glorification being the elevation of our nature to where we can see God face to face.But scripture says the tree either falls to the North or to the South (heaven or hell).
Hell is where the enemies of God go, the reprobate, but the infants in Limbo are not reprobate, are not being punished, are perfectly happy, are not in any enmity with God, and they undoubtedly interract with the saints who are in fact able to behold the Beatific Vision, something which the damned would not and cannot do.
You're stuck in the very same binary mindset of how there's only Heaven (with the Beatific Vision) or else Hell (with punishments), and it's why St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without Baptism are punished ... although just a little bit, on account of their loss of God. St. Thomas helped overturn this binary thinking and articulated the distinction between the supernatural elevation of Heaven, and the natural reward vs. punishment.
So, unhappiness and suffering are the results of being deprived of a due good. But because human nature does not even have a capacity to see God face to face and enjoy the Beatific Vision, the simple lack of the Beatific Vision along cannot cause suffering. By way of analogy, a squirrel does not suffer because it lacks the capability of speech, and that's because it has no clue even what that is, and its nature was not designed in such a way that the squirrel's perfection requires the faculty of speech, and therefore the lack of something that it hasn't even got the capacity for cannot cause suffering.
| Entity | Definition and Magisterial Basis | Role in Monograph |
| Invincibly Ignorant (II) | Persons who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the true religion (the Catholic Church) and the Gospel of Christ, but who strive to live a good and upright life, observing the precepts of the natural law and cooperating with God's grace (Quo Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX, 1863). | Granted “eternal life” in NHNE, but are still burdened with Original Sin (OS). |
| Baptism of Desire (BoD) / Explicit Votum | A state achieved by those who, without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, die after having conceived a sincere and explicit desire for the Sacrament, combined with perfect contrition or love of God (charity). This desire is sacramentally efficacious, conferring the grace and effect of the physical Sacrament, including the remission of Original Sin (Council of Trent). | Fully cleansed of Original Sin; granted full potential for the Beatific Vision (BV). |
| Beatific Vision / Perfection | The immediate and intuitive vision of God's essence face-to-face, enjoyed by the souls of the just in Heaven. It is the highest supernatural reward and the intermediate state achieved after purification (Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus). | Strict Salvation (The Beatific Vision, the goal of Christ's desire). |
| New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE) / Eternal Life | The ultimate, final, and eternal destiny of those destined for “eternal life,” realized after the General Judgment and the resurrection of the body. It signifies the complete and definitive establishment of God's Kingdom (Revelation 21:1-5). | Broad Salvation (The escape from Hell for all righteous people). |
| Context | Magisterial Term | Goal | Biblical Precedent | Necessity of the Church |
| Broad/Merciful | Eternal Life (Aeternam Vitam, Pius IX) | Escape from Hell; guaranteed entry into the New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE). | "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." | Necessary for Safety (Protection from sin). |
| Strict/Dogmatic | Perfection (Implicit in EENS) | Immediate, unhindered Beatific Vision (BV). | "If you wish to be perfect, go... and come, follow me." | Necessary for Perfection (The highest, immediate reward). |
| Type of Grace | Recipient | Status Regarding OS | Capacity for Immediate BV |
| Sacrament / Explicit Votum(BoD) | Fully Baptized | Original Sin Remitted | Yes (Full Supernatural Capacity) |
| Implicit Votum | Invincibly Ignorant (II) | Original Sin NOT Remitted | No (Lacks Sacramental Cleansing) |
| Category | Immediate State (After Death) | Final Destiny (After General Judgment) | Bar to Immediate BV? |
| Baptized Catholic (Includes BoD) | Purgatory > Beatific Vision | NHNE | Only temporal debt (if applicable). |
| Complex Invincibly Ignorant Follower (With personal sin/debt) | Purgatory > Limbo | NHNE | Persistence of Original Sin. |
| Simple Invincibly Ignorant Follower / Unbaptized Infants | Limbo (Immediate) | NHNE | Persistence of Original Sin. |
This is interesting, and I suppose we are free to speculate about NHNE (within reason)
However, something that immediately comes to mind is that that these infants, and the "invincibly ignorant", still have Original Sin. This synopsis gives no reason as to why or how Original Sin will be able to be present in NHNE.
Right, but as Original Sin is an impediment to the Beatific Vision, and as we know that the Old Testament Just now enjoy the Beatific Vision, it obviously follows that they were delivered from that state of sin by Our Lord's Passion. That is why they could only enter Heaven after It had occurred
So the synopsis is implying that the infants who die in original sin, and those invincibly ignorant, will have Original Sin remitted at the General Judgement?
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."Other Key Passages on the General Resurrection:
— John 5:28–29
"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord."
"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."
| Event | Impediment Removed | Agent of Release | Released To |
| Christ's Descent (Limbus Patrum) | Original Sin (Effected by the Cross) | The Risen Christ | Beatific Vision |
| Second Coming (II Limbo) | The Spiritual and Physical Separation | The Voice of Christ | New Heaven and New Earth |
So will the infants and those invincibly ignorant who die with Original Sin on their souls be able to enter NHNE with Original Sin, or will those with the guilt of Original Sin on their souls be remitted of it at Christ's Second Coming
I am speculating of course. But I think that the souls tainted with Original Sin would be made "new" when the NHNE is created.So infants who die with Original Sin and any Invincibly Ignorant who are in limbo will have Original Sin remitted from their souls?
So infants who die with Original Sin and any Invincibly Ignorant who are in limbo will have Original Sin remitted from their souls?
This is just BS and a denial of the necessity of baptism and of the Chruch. It sounds like some new-age, Protestant fairy tale where all the “good” people that died outside the Chruch will get a pass and have the same reward as Catholics.
If you want to argue that those in limbo eventually go to the New Earth, then that’s plausible. But they would NOT enter the new heaven. Nor would their original sin be remitted somehow. That’s heresy.
For the 53rd time, you comparing Moses to an invincibly ignorant native is blasphemy. Moses followed the Old Law; the native Indian followed the natural law, only. Moses was circuмcised. Moses believed in the redeemer. The ONLY THING Moses lacked was baptism, which he received in Limbo. The native Indian believed in no God, or one that was general. He had no religion. He worshipped God in no significant religious way. The 2 are INCOMPARABLE.
Again, everything will be made new. Just like Jesus's atonement accomplished what was necessary for the Fathers to leave Limbo and enter the Beatific Vision, there will be a similar event that accomplishes the same for the NT people stuck in Limbo at the end of time.Why can you not just answer the question?
I admit, I don't know exactly how it will happen.
Why can you not just answer the question?
Either:
Those infants and any Invincibly Ignorant in Limbo will be allowed to enter NHNE with Original Sin on their souls
Or
Those infants and any Invincibly Ignorant in Limbo will have Original Sin remitted from their souls at Christ's Second Coming
Can you rule one of these scenarios out?
Sorry, I thought my answer was obvious. Your second option is what I believe will happen.So after all of the obfuscation and word games, you do believe that some of the Invincibly Ignorant who die in their ignorance can attain the Beatific Vision, you extend this to the infants who die in original sin as well. You could have just said this at the very beginning, or at least about halfway through when you claimed my mistake was equating Paradise with Heaven, and therefore thinking you meant the invincibly ignorant can attain the Beatific Vision. Well, you did. You're incredibly deceitful..and simply not Catholic
I rule out the idea that Original Sin will be carried into the NHNE because everything is made new. The old stain of Original Sin will be gone just as the bifurcation of Heaven and Earth will be gone.
Original Sin included as its punishment exclusion from Paradise. When the new Paradise is restored that old stain will be no longer relevant.
Just like Jesus's atonement accomplished what was necessary for the Fathers to leave Limbo and enter the Beatific Vision, there will be a similar event that accomplishes the same for the NT people stuck in Limbo at the end of time.And this is just absolutely insane. You are saying that there will be a "similar event" to Our Lord's Sacrifice that will uniquely accomplish the same for those in limbo? Our Lord offered Himself ONCE for the redemption of mankind. That is dogma
And this is just absolutely insane. You are saying that there will be a "similar event" to Our Lord's Sacrifice that will uniquely accomplish the same for those in limbo? Our Lord offered Himself ONCE for the redemption of mankind. That is dogmaRather, "MY Lord". You are a wicked heretic. I will pray for your conversion
So after all of the obfuscation and word games, you do believe that some of the Invincibly Ignorant who die in their ignorance can attain the Beatific Vision, you extend this to the infants who die in original sin as well. You could have just said this at the very beginning, or at least about halfway through when you claimed my mistake was equating Paradise with Heaven, and therefore thinking you meant the invincibly ignorant can attain the Beatific Vision. Well, you did. You're incredibly deceitful..and simply not Catholic
And this is just absolutely insane. You are saying that there will be a "similar event" to Our Lord's Sacrifice that will uniquely accomplish the same for those in limbo? Our Lord offered Himself ONCE for the redemption of mankind. That is dogma
Rather, "MY Lord". You are a wicked heretic. I will pray for your conversion
"I didn't say this, I didn't say that"
You claim these souls will have Original Sin remitted at/after the Second Coming. Original Sin being the impediment to a soul enjoying the Beatific Vision.
You claim this will be a "similar event" to Our Lord's Sacrifice, which He offered ONCE, on the cross, for the redemption of mankind. Mankind. Was redeemed. ONCE. This same Redemption is what enabled the OT Just to attain the Beatific Vision.
So you are either saying some will have Original Sin remitted and will not be able to enjoy the BV, or you are saying the BV is not enjoyed for eternity
Rather, "MY Lord". You are a wicked heretic. I will pray for your conversion
As I have shown you at least 3 times, there will be a New Heaven and New Earth that are merged into one. There will no longer be a split between those two places. That is what Apocalypse 21 says.Right. And the ignorant go to limbo WHICH IS PART OF HELL. They don’t get to take part in NHNE. The ignorant of the New Testament ARE NOT the same as the OT Just, your main error. The ignorant of the New Testament DO NOT go to the Abraham’s Bosom, but the separate place called limbo of the infants.
After the General Judgment, there will only be two places for souls: the NHNE and Hell. Why? Because there will only be two types of people (souls merged with bodies): the righteous and the reprobate.
"I didn't say this, I didn't say that"
You claim these souls will have Original Sin remitted at/after the Second Coming. Original Sin being the impediment to a soul enjoying the Beatific Vision.
You claim this will be a "similar event" to Our Lord's Sacrifice, which He offered ONCE, on the cross, for the redemption of mankind. Mankind. Was redeemed. ONCE. This same Redemption is what enabled the OT Just to attain the Beatific Vision.
So you are either saying some will have Original Sin remitted and will not be able to enjoy the BV, or you are saying the BV is not enjoyed for eternity
Right. And the ignorant go to limbo WHICH IS PART OF HELL. They don’t get to take part in NHNE. The ignorant of the New Testament ARE NOT the same as the OT Just, your main error. The ignorant of the New Testament DO NOT go to the Abraham’s Bosom, but the separate place called limbo of the infants.
The old vs New Testament had different religious requirements ergo there are different limbos. The former was a temporary place. The latter is permanent.
There is simply no way for Angelus to reconcile what he is saying with Church teaching
The REASON why infants are in limbo(and why he believes some invincibly ignorant may be), and not enjoying the BV, is because of Original Sin. He says that Original Sin is remitted from their Souls at Christ's Second Coming/General Judgement..well then there is nothing barring them from enjoying the Beatific Vision...yet he claims they will not enjoy the Beatific Vision
In the NHNE (the Kingdom of God), after the General Judgment, the embodied souls will see God face to face [Apoc. 22:4]. That is also the Beatific Vision. But it differs in that it is the final destination for ALL righteous people. It is not the intermediate Beatific Vision that is only accessible to those who are not still stained with Original Sin.
The similar event will have to do with Our Lady and her Coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is Co-Redemptorix. It is through her that the final mysteries will be effected. It will be her time of glory.
Your binary, either/or thinking is defective. The reason for that is you are ignorant of Catholic eschatology.
I'd much rather be ignorant of eschatology than be so "knowledgeable" of it that I end up denying EENS, the necessity of Baptism, Christ's Redemption of mankind on the Cross, Original Sin Dogma, and Justification Dogma
Ultimately, and we are back to the "beginning" once again:
You believe there is salvation outside of the Church
You do, in fact, believe that the invincibly ignorant who die in their ignorance will attain the Beatific Vision..after 10+ pages of saying "it ain't so"
You do not believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation
You do not believe that the Sacraments in general are necessary for salvation
You do not believe that holding even a single article of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation
You do not believe that Christ, having offered Himself ONCE for the redemption of mankind, died for all (you posit that there will be a second "similar" redemption-like event at the Second Coming for those in limbo)
^^The above is probably the worst of them all, just incredibly blasphemous. As has already been explained to you, the REASON that the OT Just were in Limbo was because the Messiah had not yet come and redeemed mankind.
After the Redemption (only once (as in one (1) time) accomplished), there is no other redemption. It sufficed for not only the OT Just, but for mankind. There is no other "similar event" that will redeem the infants or invincibly ignorant in Limbo.
It is blasphemous and heretical for you to assert that there will be a second redemption-like event
Rather than accuse me of being "ignorant" of "Catholic eschatology", you should remove yourself from the study of it, considering the conclusions you draw from your research are diametrically opposed to simple Catholic Faith
I'd much rather be ignorant of eschatology than be so "knowledgeable" of it that I end up denying EENS, the necessity of Baptism, Christ's Redemption of mankind on the Cross, Original Sin Dogma, and Justification Dogma
Ultimately, and we are back to the "beginning" once again:
You do, in fact, believe that the invincibly ignorant who die in their ignorance will attain the Beatific Vision..after 10+ pages of saying "it ain't so"
You do not believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation
You do not believe that the Sacraments in general are necessary for salvation
You do not believe that holding even a single article of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation
You do not believe that Christ, having offered Himself ONCE for the redemption of mankind, died for all (you posit that there will be a second "similar" redemption-like event at the Second Coming for those in limbo)
^^The above is probably the worst of them all, just incredibly blasphemous. As has already been explained to you, the REASON that the OT Just were in Limbo was because the Messiah had not yet come and redeemed mankind.
After the Redemption (only once (as in one (1) time) accomplished), there is no other redemption. It sufficed for not only the OT Just, but for mankind. There is no other "similar event" that will redeem the infants or invincibly ignorant in Limbo.
It is blasphemous and heretical for you to assert that there will be a second redemption-like event
Rather than accuse me of being "ignorant" of "Catholic eschatology", you should remove yourself from the study of it, considering the conclusions you draw from your research are diametrically opposed to simple Catholic Faith
"Pius IX as my rule of faith"
Yeah, we know. Use the Church as your rule of faith, believe what She has taught through Her General Councils and ex cathedra papal teachings, and then apply it to what Pius IX wrote
Says the man who puts Leonard Feeney's interpretation of those teachings ABOVE the interpretation of Pius IX.That's Fr Feeney to you. And it wasn't his interpretation but simply what the Church teaches.
Says the man who puts Leonard Feeney's interpretation of those teachings ABOVE the interpretation of Pius IX.I haven't read Fr. Feeney's interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to say what it is :smirk:
"As there is", says Pius IX., "but one God the Father, one Christ his Son, one Holy Ghost, so there isalso only one divinely revealed truth, only one divine faith--the beginning of man's salvation and thefoundation of all justification, by which (faith) the just man lives, and without which it is impossible toplease God and to be admitted to the Communion of his children; and there is but one true, holy, Catholic, Roman Church and divine teaching Authority, (cathedra) founded upon Peter by the living voice ofthe Lord, out of which (Church) there is neither the TRUE FAITH nor ETERNAL SALVATION, sinceno one, can have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his Mother." (Encycl. Letter, March 17,1856.)...It must be remembered that every dogma is exclusive, and admits of no interpretation contrary to thatwhich it has received from the beginning. To every dogma, therefore, may be added what Pius IX. added to the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary, namely: "―Wherefore, ifany persons--which God forbid--shall presume.to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined,let them know that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck infaith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church"...§ 7. INVINCIBLE OR INCULPABLE IGNORANCE NEITHER SAVES NOR DAMNS A PER-SON.―But, suppose, some one will say, a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on theright road to heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault.We can understand that God is not bound to give heaven to anybody, but, as he is just, he certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault.Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth in question is sufficiently answered inthe explanation already given of this great truth. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has al-ready been said.Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: ―There aremany things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as,for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this withthe help of grace; and ‗to whomsoever God gives his grace he gives it out of divine mercy; and to whom-soever he does not give it, he refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at leastin punishment of original sin, as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q.ii. art. v.) ―And the ignorance of those things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care tohave is without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, thewant of it is a punishment for their sins,‖ says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and nei-ther the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost.‖ (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi.,n. 27.)Moreover, a person who wants to go East, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going West,will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes East. In likemanner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true roadto heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road toheaven. God, in his infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to heav-en, if he corresponds to his grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:―What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any faultof theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?To this question we give the following answer: ―Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not savethem; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish themwith the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in theCatholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.‖ (St. Thomas Aquinas.)S. O. remarks about this answer, ―that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever bepunished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance.‖ In these words, S. O. impudently imputes tous what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance..From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sinagainst the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclu-sion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contralatius hos quam praemissae.‖ Togive an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in hisbook, The true Religion and its dogmas:--―This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in away a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the au-thority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she callshim her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine inthe kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, barthe gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his homefor eternity.‖ We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, notfor the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after thesefalse assertions, namely: ―This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanc-tion of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: ―Itis indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is theone ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it isequally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be heldguilty in the sight of God for not professing it.‖Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Rus-so, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way amember of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words,which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?―Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious socie-ties, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church--which, from the days of OurLord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, thedivine power committed to it by this same Lord--will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies,singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded andbuilt, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are mem-bers or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity………―Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves ofthe opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers be-longed, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the long-ings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance oftheir own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throwdown the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back tothe Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whomalone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenlygrace dispensed.‖Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other re-ligious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannothave salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, toscatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found.‖And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: ―Let those, therefore, who wishto be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the trueChurch of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succes-sion of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything ofgreater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by theApostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that,by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THISONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION.‖ Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in thesewords that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they mustcome to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo,S. J., that ―It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?‖ How,then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he de-scribed, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon himas wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him,through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from thetrue one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX. teaches the very contrary? And markespecially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: ―This our opinion is the doctrinewhich has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.‖ To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotesthe following words of Pius IX: ―It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of thetrue religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.‖ If, in these words,Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses aProtestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves sucha Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation--all thatyou can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Bos-ton draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX.has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, heldDec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanc-tioned such perverse opinions. ―In our times,‖ says he, ―many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith directtheir efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, orconfounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indif-ference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slanderus by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently ofevery class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, howeveralienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at ever-lasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atro-cious injustice that is done to us.‖Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against ―certain men,‖ whom he calls the enemies ofthe Catholic Faith,--he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions,in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion.Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: ―The spir-itual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spirituallife; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of theChurch. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of theexterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresyunconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visi-ble Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential thatwithout it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, thougha real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible igno-rance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the lightwhich he does not see‖? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have saidbefore. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnationof such monstrous opinions. (See Preface) Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opin-ions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from HolyScripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to theiropinions. The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question. Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ―Invincible ignorance,‖ says St. Thomas Aquinas, ―is a punishment for sin.‖ (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin ofinfidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.Hence Pius IX. said ―that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault.‖
I haven't read Fr. Feeney's interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to say what it is :smirk:*Fr. Feeney's interpretation of Pius IX, that is. Not sure why you think Fr. Feeney would have a different "interpretation" of the Dogma than Pius IX...they both believed that there is no salvation outside the Church
Here's Fr. Michael Müller, in the late-19th century:Formatting is a bit weird so you can read it here if you'd like:
https://www.jmjsite.com/r/catholicdogma.pdf
I haven't read Fr. Feeney's interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to say what it is :smirk:
Here's Fr. Michael Müller, in the late-19th century:Formatting is a bit weird so you can read it here if you'd like:
https://www.jmjsite.com/r/catholicdogma.pdf
You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children. There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church
...
Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control
PPIX, Singulari Quidem
From what I can gather Fr. Muller is focused the views of Fr. Russo. Fr. Muller says,Fr. Russo was just one of many heretics who denied EENS. What Fr. Müller is saying doesn't just apply to him only. Just read the whole chapter, the next, and actually the whole book as well
"Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Rus-so, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way amember of the Catholic Church?
I did not say anything about "a Protestant in good faith" being "a member of the Catholic Church." If you are trying to say that I endorse Russo's position, your are making a straw man argument against me.
I never said the invincibly ignorant or inside the Church. They are, of logically necessity OUTSIDE the Church, because they are invincibly ignorant of it. If they know of the Church, and they fail to understand what it teaches and remain Protestant, that person is VINCIBLY and CULPABLY Ignorant.
Fr. Russo was just one of many heretics who denied EENS. What Fr. Müller is saying doesn't just apply to him only. Just read the whole chapter, the next, and actually the whole book as well
Rather than telling me to read the whole book. Why don't you find the specific parts that apply to or contradict my position? You act as if you are familiar enough with its argument to suggest that it applies to me.Chapters 7, 8, 9. The whole book would do you well, but those are the most relevant chapters. He speaks of invincible ignorance, what Pius IX actually taught about it, and how these people may be saved. Basically, what I've been saying this whole time. Run it through Gemini if you want an analysis.
Chapters 7, 8, 9. The whole book would do you well, but those are the most relevant chapters. He speaks of invincible ignorance, what Pius IX actually taught about it, and how these people may be saved. Basically, what I've been saying this whole time. Run it through Gemini if you want an analysis.
| Entity | Definition and Magisterial Basis | Role in Monograph |
| Invincibly Ignorant (II) | Persons who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the true religion (the Catholic Church) and the Gospel of Christ, but who strive to live a good and upright life, observing the precepts of the natural lawand cooperating with God's grace (Quo Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX, 1863). | Saved via Sufficient Graceand are still burdened with Original Sin (OS). |
| Baptism of Desire (BoD) / Explicit Votum | A state achieved by those who possess an explicit desire for the Sacrament combined with perfect contrition or charity. This desire is sacramentally efficacious, conferring the remission of Original Sin(Council of Trent; CCC 1258). | Fully cleansed of OS; granted full capacity for the Beatific Vision (BV). |
| Beatific Vision (BV) / Perfection | The immediate and intuitive vision of God's essence face-to-face, the highest supernatural reward and the intermediate state achieved by the purified soul. | Strict Salvation(The highest goal of Christ's desire). |
| New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE) / Eternal Life | The ultimate, final, and eternal destiny of the saved, realized after the General Judgment and the resurrection of the body. Includes seeing God "face to face" [Apoc. 22:4] | Broad Salvation(The guaranteed escape from Hell). |
| Context | Goal | Condition |
| Broad/Merciful | Guaranteed New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE). | Adherence to Natural Law and sufficient grace(Pius IX). |
| Strict/Dogmatic | Immediate, unhindered Beatific Vision (BV). | Membership in the Church and Sacramental Efficacy (EENS). |
| Type of Grace | OS Remitted? | Provides BV Capacity? | Rationale |
| Explicit Votum (BoD) | Yes | Yes | Sacramental efficacy, focused intention on sin's cleansing. |
| Implicit Votum(II) | No | No | Sufficient grace but lacks the sacramental means for full purification (the "white garment"). |
| Category | Intermediate State (Before GJ) | Final Destiny (After GJ) | Spiritual Impediment to Immediate BV |
| Baptized Catholic (Includes BoD) | Purgatory > BV | NHNE | None (OS is remitted). |
| Invincibly Ignorant (II) | Purgatory > Limbo | NHNE | Persistence of Original Sin. |
| Unbaptized Infants | Limbo (Immediate) | NHNE | Persistence of Original Sin. |
What was your prompt? :laugh1:
What was your prompt? :laugh1:
| Feature | Soteria (Salvation) | Zoe (Life) |
| Core Concept | Deliverance / Safety | Vitality / Animation |
| Analogy | The doctor pulling you out of a car wreck. | The ability to walk, run, and breathe afterward. |
| Problem Solved | Solves the problem of Danger(Wrath/Judgment). | Solves the problem of Deadness (Spiritual void). |
| Primary State | Safety (from peril). | Communion (with God). |
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life (Zoe), and have it to the full."
What was your prompt? :laugh1:Here is a formalization of your "Delayed Entry" eschatology, structured as a theological hypothesis suitable for inclusion in a monograph.
What was your prompt? :laugh1:
4. But Pius IX says nothing about miraculous interventions. Pius IX speaks the requirement that the Invincibly Ignorant observe the natural law in an honest way and by doing that they will attain eternal life by virtue of divine grace and light. If Pius IX simply meant that a miracle must happen, he never implied such.
This theological hypothesis, proposing a distinction between Zoe (Divine Life/Sanctifying Grace) and Soteria (Salvation/Immediate Beatific Vision) and incorporating a temporary Limbo for the invincibly ignorant leading to eventual admission into the New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE), would have been condemned or considered heterodox before Vatican II, based on the doctrinal consensus of the Ecuмenical Councils and subsequent Papal Magisterium.
Here is an analysis using the relevant pre-Vatican II Ecuмenical Councils:
🛑 Analysis of Condemnation (Pre-Vatican II)
The central conflict lies in the hypothesis's stance on:
The Necessity of Baptism for the Remission of Original Sin and Entry into Heaven.
The Nature of the Intermediate State and the Immediacy of the Beatific Vision.
The Universality of the Eternal Judgment (Heaven or Hell).
I. The Necessity of Baptism and the Immediate Judgment (Soteria)
The hypothesis fails on the crucial connection between the removal of Original Sin and the immediate consequence of judgment, as defined by several Councils.
A. Council of Florence (1438-1445)
This Council is arguably the most direct and forceful condemnation of the hypothesis's treatment of the invincibly ignorant and Limbo.
Necessity of Baptism: The decree Exsultate Deo (on the Armenians) states: "No one can be delivered from the Devil's dominion except through the sacrament of baptism, which either the adult or the infant receives from anyone in the form of the Church." It states that baptism is the "remedy for Original Sin."
Fate of the Unbaptized: The decree Cantate Domino states: "The holy Roman Church... firmly believes, professes and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life they are joined to her... and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in this unity can profit from the sacraments for salvation."
Immediacy of Judgment (Post-Mortem): The decree Laetentur Caeli (with the Greeks) and the Bull Benedictus sit Deus state that the souls of the justified (who are in no need of purification) or those purified immediately enter Heaven and "clearly behold God Himself, One and Three, as He is" (visio immediata - immediate vision).
Condemnation of Limbo/Delayed Vision: The hypothesis's claim that Class B (the invincibly ignorant with Zoe) retains Original Sin and is "deprived of the Intermediate BV" by residing in a temporal Limbo until the General Judgment directly contradicts the doctrine of the immediate, specific judgment of souls leading to one of three immediate states (Heaven/BV, Purgatory, or Hell). The Council's definition of "eternal life" is the immediate Beatific Vision—not a delayed admission into the NHNE.
B. Council of Trent (1545-1563)
Trent reinforces the absolute necessity of Baptism and the process of justification, which the hypothesis violates.
Justification and Original Sin: The decree on Justification (Session VI) explicitly links the fomes peccati (concupiscence) to the necessity of Baptism for its remission: Canon 5 states: "If anyone says that this guilt of Original Sin is remitted neither by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in Baptism..."
Baptism and Entrance to the Kingdom: Canon 5 on Baptism (Session VII) states: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (ad salutem)... let him be anathema." The hypothesis, by claiming the unbaptized invincibly ignorant (Class B) ultimately enter the NHNE (eternal glory) without Baptism, undermines this defined necessity.
II. The Nature of Grace (Zoe) vs. Salvation (Soteria)
The hypothesis creates a separation that is doctrinally problematic in a pre-Vatican II context.
Zoe (Sanctifying Grace) as the Sine Qua Non for Soteria: For pre-Vatican II theology, Sanctifying Grace (Zoe) is the formal cause of justification and the required disposition for the Beatific Vision (Soteria). To be in a state of grace without being saved (i.e., not progressing to the BV) is only possible in Purgatory (for those already saved/baptized) or immediately after death before the BV.
The hypothesis claims Class B has Zoe but not Soteria (due to Original Sin). If Zoe (Sanctifying Grace) is truly present, it makes the un-remitted stain of Original Sin a technicality preventing the BV, which is not supported. Sanctifying Grace, by its very nature, is the formal beginning of salvation and cannot coexist with the guilt/stain of Original Sin in the unbaptized without a grave theological innovation.
III. The Final State: NHNE and Universalism
The hypothesis's eschatology for Class B is incompatible with the traditional "two-part" final judgment (Heaven or Hell).
The hypothesis allows the invincibly ignorant (Class B) to bypass both Hell (Poena Sensus) and the eternal Poena Damni (loss of BV) and be integrated into the NHNE upon the General Judgment.
This post-mortem "second chance" or delayed, non-sacramental universal salvation for a whole class of people runs counter to the definition of eternal life (BV) being secured through the Church's vessel (Baptism/Votum) before death.
The traditional understanding of the Limbo of the Infants (which the hypothesis seems to adapt for Class B) was a state of natural, not supernatural, happiness, and its inhabitants were considered to be subject to the Poena Damni eternally, precisely because Original Sin remained a barrier to the Beatific Vision, which is the sole, ultimate end of man. The hypothesis admits them to the NHNE, abolishing their eternal Poena Damni, a deviation from the traditional consensus.
📝 Conclusion
The hypothesis would have been condemned, not merely as "unwise" or "unclear," but as heretical or erroneous in key aspects, especially regarding the necessity of Baptism, the nature of Original Sin's effect on the final destiny, and the immediate, definitive nature of the Particular Judgment, which leads only to Heaven (immediately or after Purgatory) or Hell.
The attempt to preserve EENS by defining Soteria as immediate BV and Zoe as non-damnation while postponing the true "salvation" until the NHNE would have been seen as a sophisticated evasion of the Church's dogma on the means of salvation.
Your narrow definition of "salvation"..has never been taught. Your theory of a second redemption..has never been taught. Your theory that Original Sin can be remitted after death...has never been taught. Your theory that those who die with Original Sin on their soul can go anywhere save for hell..has never been taught
Here is a draft of the Anticipated Objections and Responses section to defend your theological hypothesis.
This section addresses the primary theological frictions your model creates, particularly concerning the finality of death and the mechanism of removing Original Sin without water Baptism.
VI. Anticipated Objections and Responses
This elaborate defense, while theologically sophisticated, would not have prevented the condemnation pre-Vatican II. The core objections raised by the inventor, when analyzed against the formal, definitive decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils and the explicit Papal Magisterium, remain fundamentally incompatible with the settled theology of the time.
The inventor's defense relies heavily on a radical distinction between Zoe and Soteria and a novel eschatological function for the General Judgment and the New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE), which acts as a non-sacramental cleanser of Original Sin.
Here is a systematic pre-Vatican II analysis of the inventor's responses:
🚫 Pre-Vatican II Theological Assessment of the Responses
I. The Finality of the Particular Judgment (Objection 1)
The inventor's response is an attempt to evade the doctrine of status terminis (the soul's fixed state after death) by shifting the nature of the exclusion from a moral fault to a "legal status" (Original Sin/missing paperwork) that Christ resolves through the Resurrection.
Pre-Vatican II Assessment:
Pre-Vatican II Assessment Doctrinal Conflict
Heresy/Error(Immediate Exclusion):
The Magisterium never described Original Sin as mere "legal status" or "missing paperwork" in the unbaptized. Trent defined Original Sin as the "death of the soul" and the "privation of justice."
Contradicts Florence on Judgment:
The Council of Florence defined the immediate state of the soul after death: Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. It states that all who die in actual or original sin "will immediately descend into hell, to be punished." The hypothesis interposes a temporal Limbo for those with Original Sin, which ultimately leads to glory, directly contradicting the immediate descent of all with Original Sin.
Change of Economy:
The claim that the NHNE "supersedes" the Baptismal Character is a denial of the sacrament's indelible effect. The character is an ontological mark, not a mere legal requirement for the intermediate state. This response minimizes the efficacy of the Sacraments as the divinely established means of salvation.
II. The Necessity of Baptism (Objection 2)
The inventor's distinction between the "Sacramental Order" (Church Age) and the "Eschatological Order" (End of Days) is an unsupportable theological novelty in the pre-Vatican II context
Pre-Vatican II Assessment:
Denial of Sacramental Necessity:
The claim that the NHNE can act as an "ultimate cleansing" of Original Sin, rendering the sacrament "obsolete," would be seen as a heretical denial of the necessity and efficacy of Baptism as established by Christ. Trent explicitly anathematized those who say baptism is "not necessary for salvation."
Contradicts Divine Pedagogy:
God established the Sacraments as the ordinary means of grace for all time until the Parousia. The final state (NHNE) is the perfection of the res (the reality of grace/union with God) received in the Sacraments, not a completely different system that bypasses the sacraments' necessity for the initial cleansing of sin.
Redefining Res et Sacramentum:
The inventor confuses the res (the reality, grace) with the res et sacramentum (the indelible character and grace). The final res (God being "all in all") is the perfection of the grace begun in the Sacramental Order, not its replacement for the cleansing of Original Sin.
III. The Pelagian Error (Naturalism) (Objection 3)
The inventor attempts to save the hypothesis by invoking Pope Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (on Invincible Ignorance), but the synthesis still fails
Pre-Vatican II Assessment:
Hidden Pelagianism:
While the inventor claims the invincibly ignorant possess Zoe (Supernatural Life) as a gift, this Zoe is still being posited as sufficient for ultimate eternal glory in the NHNE without the formal, necessary channel of Baptism to remit Original Sin.
Conflict with Trent on Grace:
Trent is clear that the beginning of justification is necessary for final salvation. If Original Sin remains, the soul is, by definition, not justified and is not possessing the full Sanctifying Grace (Zoe) necessary for supernatural happiness. The hypothesis requires Sanctifying Grace to coexist with the guilt/stain of Original Sin—a state that is theologically impossible.
Misinterpretation of Pius IX:
The Church's allowance for the invincibly ignorant focused on the impossibility of judging their final state, and the possibility of Implicit Votum (Baptism of Desire) for adults. The inventor rejects Implicit Votum for Class B by stating Original Sin remains—a fatal move. If they truly possessed the necessary Grace (Zoe), the traditional path was to argue for an Implicit Votum which removes Original Sin, not to create a new mechanism where the sin remains and is later cleansed by the NHNE.
IV. Redundancy of Evangelization & Definition of Salvation (Objections 4 & 5)
The inventor's defense relies on the distinction between the "Bride" (Church, higher glory) and the "Guests" (Limbo, eventual glory), and the "Loss of Time" in Limbo.
Pre-Vatican II Assessment:
Heresy/Error (The Core Issue):
The entire defense rests on the premise that the invincibly ignorant (Class B) are eventually saved and granted eternal glory in the NHNE despite dying with Original Sin and lacking Baptism/Votum. This undermines the absolute necessity of the Church and Sacraments for Salvation (Soteria) as understood by the Councils.
Justification by Time:
The notion that "deprivation for thousands of years" in Limbo is the price paid is theologically bizarre. Punishment or deprivation is measured by the offense. The price for Original Sin is the eternal loss of the Beatific Vision (Poena Damni), not a temporary time-out before final entry.
Degree of Glory:
While there are degrees of glory in Heaven, pre-Vatican II theology held that no soul subject to Original Sin could ever enter Heaven at all. The entire discussion of "higher vs. lower glory" is irrelevant if the soul is not saved (i.e., not justified/cleansed of Original Sin).
🏛️ Summary of Condemnation
This hypothesis would have been condemned for the following reasons, directly related to the decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils:
Denial of Immediate Judgment (Florence): By interposing a Limbo that leads to eventual eternal glory for those with Original Sin, it denies the definitive, immediate, and eternal judgment (Heaven or Hell) of the soul.
Denial of Baptismal Necessity (Trent): By suggesting the New Heaven and New Earth can cleanse Original Sin and grant eternal glory, it undermines the dogma that Baptism is the ordinary and necessary instrumental cause for the remission of Original Sin and the entrance to the Kingdom of God.
Ontological Contradiction: It creates an impossible state where Sanctifying Grace (Zoe) is present in a soul that is simultaneously burdened by the guilt of Original Sin.
The theological consensus was that the only way for an unbaptized adult to be saved was through Baptism of Desire (Implicit Votum), which removes Original Sin and grants Sanctifying Grace, thereby fulfilling the requirements for immediate entry into Heaven (after Purgatory). The inventor explicitly rejects this path for Class B by insisting Original Sin remains.
Some of this has actually been condemned, and you can see how he rolled this ideas out as this thread has gone along just so he can stick with his original thesis. Instead of realizing that what he originally held was wrong, and to reconsider it ... he came up with one bizarre twisted contortion after another, redefining terms like salvation and Hell, and then proposing the heretical notion of an apokatastasis.
And I have said that I don't believe anyone who dies "outside of the Church" experiences the beatific vision. I think the beatific vision is reserved BOTH for those who die in a state of sanctifying grace without temporal debt AND for those who go to Purgatory first but enter the beatific vision after their temporal debt is paid in Purgatory
Ok, now this is fun :laugh1:
Gemini Prompt:
The inventer of the theory responds with this:
[Schizo defense]
Answer:
"...able to attain eternal life [aeternam vitam] by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."
Inventor's response:
[Schizo theory]
The inventor's defense, using the Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers) as a theological analogy, is a highly innovative and sophisticated attempt to resolve the internal contradictions of the original hypothesis.
However, in the pre-Vatican II context (i.e., before the modern theological shift away from the strict concept of the Limbo of Infants), this analogy would ultimately fail to avoid condemnation because of a fundamental, critical disanalogy between the two "Limbo" states.
🛑 Final Assessment: Why the Limbus Patrum Defense Fails (Pre-Vatican II)
While the inventor resolves the Ontological Contradiction regarding the coexistence of Grace (Zoe) and exclusion from the Beatific Vision (Soteria) by using the Patriarchs, the defense introduces an unacceptable doctrinal contradiction regarding the nature of Original Sin and the purpose of the two Limbo states.
I. The Fatal Disanalogy: Original Sin vs. Legal Debt
The Limbus Patrum analogy fundamentally breaks down when examining the specific reason for exclusion from Heaven.
Feature Limbus Patrum (Patriarchs) Proposed Limbo (Invincibly Ignorant) Pre-Vatican II Doctrinal Conflict
Reason for Exclusion Legal Debt: The Gates of Heaven were closed due to the sin of Adam on a cosmic scale (the Redemptive Act had not yet occurred). There was no Original Sin stain remaining on the soul. The souls were fully justified. Original Sin Stain/Debt of Nature: The soul retains the stain/guilt of Original Sin (lack of the Baptismal Character), which prevents entry. Condemnation: The Church taught that the Limbus Patrum was for justified, holy souls (free from Original Sin). The inventor's Limbo is for unjustified souls (retaining Original Sin). A justified soul cannot retain the stain of Original Sin. The invention is based on a false premise.
The Cleansing Act The Descent into Hell (Harrowing of Hell) was Christ's act of applying the Redemption to already justified souls, removing the legal debt and opening the gates. The General Judgment/Resurrection is Christ's act of removing the stain of Original Sin and applying the key to the soul for the first time. Condemnation: The General Judgment is not an instrument of primary justification/cleansing from Original Sin. That role belongs exclusively to Baptism or its Votum (Trent).
Pius IX Conflict If the invincibly ignorant truly possess the "Divine Light and Grace" necessary for "eternal life" (Zoe), the consensus view was that this grace inherently constitutes an Implicit Votum and REMOVES Original Sin, placing them analogously in the state of the Patriarchs (justified, but barred by the cosmic debt). The inventor rejects this consensus view by insisting Original Sin remains (as "Debt of Nature"). This creates an unjustifiable hybrid state that exists nowhere in dogmatic theology
II. Conflict with the Limbo of Infants
The inventor's Limbo is not the Limbus Patrum; it is a redeemed version of the Limbo of Infants (or Limbo Puerorum).
Traditional Limbo of Infants: Souls possessed Original Sin, were subject to the eternal Poena Damni (loss of BV), but were free from the Poena Sensus (suffering of Hell). Their state was eternal and fixed.
Inventor's Limbo: Souls possess Original Sin, but their exclusion is temporal, and they are eventually admitted to the NHNE.
The inventor takes the characteristics of the Limbus Puerorum (Original Sin, no suffering) and adds the temporal release mechanism of the Limbus Patrum (saved at the end of time), fundamentally altering the eternal consequence of Original Sin. This change is the key point of condemnation.
III. Summary of Final Judgment
The inventor's revised monograph would be condemned because it still:
Redefines Original Sin: It claims Grace (Zoe) can coexist with the "stain" or "debt" of Original Sin without the latter constituting guilt that eternally excludes the soul from the vision. This runs contrary to the definitions of Trent.
Violates the Efficacy of the Particular Judgment (Florence): It denies that a soul dying with the "debt of nature" (Original Sin) must immediately and eternally suffer the Poena Damni.
Creates a Third, Non-Sacramental Mechanism of Salvation: It makes the Resurrection/NHNE the final cleanser of Original Sin for an entire class of people, thereby making the Baptismal Sacrament the temporal means for immediate entry, rather than the necessary means for salvation itself.
The Conclusion Remains: The hypothesis would be condemned as erroneous or heterodox pre-Vatican II, specifically for its denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for the removal of Original Sin and the eternal nature of the Poena Damni for the unbaptized.
And you continue to lie and slander.
You are a heretic if you hold that simply observing the natural law can suffice to obtain salvation. That is heresy, a direct verbatim denial of Trent's teaching that supernatural faith is required for salvation. There must be supernatural faith, hope, and charity ... and that requires belief in God, and, according to most theologians, explicit faith / belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
Again, your assertion that mere adherence to and conformity with natural law suffices to somehow merit salvation is heretical on two counts: 1) supernatural faith is required, and on amount of natural virtue can cause supernatural faith, 2) it's Pelagian heresy.
You increase your pertinacity in heresy with each and every post you make.
You know ... this reminds me of how arrogantly you clung to the extreme stupidity of claiming Bergoglio's election was invalid because the Conclave started before Ratzginer's funeral had occurred. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read ... and yet you clung to it tooth and nail because of extreme pride. You're doing the same thing here, except the consequences are extreme ... where you're pertinaciously clinging to heresy, even after you've been corrected on the matter by several posters here.
"You are attacking a position I do not hold. I never claimed that 'observing the natural law suffices' by its own power to merit salvation. That is indeed Pelagianism.
I am quoting Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, who explicitly states that those observing the natural law are 'able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.'
You are ignoring the 'Divine Light and Grace' clause. My argument is that God, in His mercy, gratuitously bestows this Supernatural Faith/Grace upon the invincibly ignorant who seek Him. It is the Grace that saves, not the natural law. The natural law observance is simply the disposition of the recipient, not the cause of the salvation.
Regarding explicit faith: If explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation were an absolute necessity of means without exception, then Pius IX would be in error for suggesting that someone 'struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion' could attain eternal life. The Pope clearly teaches that Implicit Faith (contained in the 'Divine Light') suffices in these extraordinary cases."
Not taking the time to format this, decipher it if you wish :trollface:
Gemini Prompt:
Gemini Response:
The critique claims you cannot have "Eternal Life" while "alienated from Catholic unity." Pius IX explicitly says you can.
The accusation that this hypothesis is "Pelagian" or "Heretical" collapses ....
If EENS ("No Salvation Outside the Church") is true ...
What Pope Pius IX taught was simple and clear ... and has nothing to do with that bullshit you're churning out above.
He reaffirms the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church. He then addresses the age-old question of ... what about those who are invincibly ignorant? To which he answers, if they have not committed actual sin, they will not be punished for that, and then says that God will bring to salvation those who do not place obstacles in the way of his grace via sin by his divine light and grace. As to how this would be done, and in terms of questions like, why God allows some to be born into situations where they do not become exposed to the faith, we will undrestand only when we leave this earth. At no point does Pius IX say that those who are in ignorance can be saved IN THEIR STATE, but that they have a HOPE for salvation and that God will bring them to salvation if they do not resist His grace.
Yeah, he just refuses to get it. He is refuted by the very Encyclicals he is trying to use to support himself
Pius IX says there is no salvation outside of the Church. Meaning, as it always has, that there is no salvation outside of the Church. He says the invincibly ignorant, who are outside of the Church, can hope for salvation. He does not say that they can "find" salvation outside of the Church, he actually says you cannot "find" salvation outside of the Church :facepalm:
Angelus might be the first trad to simply just deny the Dogma outright. Most will try to say that non-Catholics can somehow, in some way, be "inside" the Church in order to not explicitly deny the Dogma. But no, Angelus has actually discovered the true "more profound understanding (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm#:~:text=Hence%2C too%2Cthat meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church%2C and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding)" of the Dogma
At no point does Pius IX say that those who are in ignorance can be saved IN THEIR STATE, but that they have a HOPE for salvation and that God will bring them to salvation if they do not resist His grace.Yes. This is why Angelus’ explanation of Pius IX’s phrase “divine light” is incoherent and circular. The pope is saying that those who follow the natural law will be given divine light/grace TO CONVERT.
First, as I have shown over and over again, the word "salvation" can mean multiple things in Catholic theology. In the context of EENS, the word "salvation" has never been precisely defined by the Magisterium. Therefore, that precise definition remains in the realm of theological opinion.Heresy.
Salvation can mean either 1) saved from the fires of Purgatory,No. Those that go to purgatory are saved, because they will gain heaven.
2) saved from the deprivation of God in Limbo, orPeople in Limbo are in hell. They were not "saved" because they are not in heaven. Pius IX says that these are not "suffering eternally" but they still aren't saved.
3) saved from Gehenna/Hell. I take it to mean "saved" from all three, which is the most comprehensive and obvious meaning. You, however, take it to mean only option 3. We have theological disagreement. It is not a heretical disagreement.This is the only "saved" that is consistent with Scripture and with catholic doctrine. God wants all men to be saved, as Scripture says. If people are in hell or in Limbo, they are NOT WITH HIM, ergo, they are not saved.
Second, the accusation of Pelagianism is misplaced because the "eternal life" that the Invincibly Ignorant enjoy is NOT brought about their own efforts alone. No, by cooperating with God in following the Natural Law, the person receives the grace of the Divine Light to continue on the path of righteousness.
He remains "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" until his death. But he dies in a state righteousness ONLY by "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." My position is intended to be identical to that of Pius IX on this particular aspect.The "divine light and grace" that Pius IX speaks of, is the work of the Holy Ghost in a person's soul to ENLIGHTEN THEM ABOUT SPIRITUAL TRUTHS. ONE CANNOT REMAIN IGNORANT AFTER RECEIVING DIVINE LIGHT AND GRACE.
- Source: It is not achieved by natural works (Pelagianism), but "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Your argument has always been that these invincibly ignorant were following the natural law. Now you're saying that they are ignorant AND GUILTY OF PERSONAL MORTAL SIN? That means they aren't following the natural law.
- - Nature: This "Divine Light" grants the soul Implicit Supernatural Faith, constituting a state of grace (Zoe) that exempts the soul from the "eternal punishments" due to personal mortal sin.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Your argument has always been that these invincibly ignorant were following the natural law. Now you're saying that they are ignorant AND GUILTY OF PERSONAL MORTAL SIN? That means they aren't following the natural law.
No, no, no, my friend. Ignorance only remits "original sin" (in your convoluted mind) but it cannot remit mortal sin. If you say it can, that's another heresy.
If that's the case, then every catholic ever would be in heaven. Because they have EXPLICIT FAITH, which, logically, should also provide a state of grace.
:laugh1: Ok. It's heresy either way.
| Terminology | Latin | Definition and Theological Function |
| Zoe (Eternal Life) | Aeternam Vitam | The Interior State of Grace (Spiritual Vitality). Accessible to the Invincibly Ignorant via "Divine Light" (Pius IX). It secures the soul against Hell. |
| Soteria (Salvation) | Salvari | The Juridical Status of being "Rescued," clothed in the Baptismal Character (the Wedding Garment), and granted immediate access to the Beatific Vision (BV). Mediated exclusively by the Church. |
| The Debt of Nature | Poena Damni | The remaining spiritual deficit (lack of the Baptismal Character) after justification. Distinct from the Guilt of sin. |
| Invincibly Ignorant (II) | N/A | Persons who, through no fault of their own, adhere to the natural law and cooperate with God's sufficient grace (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore). |
| Entity | State of Grace (Guilt) | Impediment (Debt) | Intermediate Destination |
| OT Fathers(Abraham, Moses) | Possessed Grace (Zoe) and were Friends of God. | Lacked the Sacrament of the Cross (Redemption not yet applied). | Limbus Patrum (Natural peace, Supernatural deprivation) |
| Invincibly Ignorant (The Just Nations) | Possess Grace (Zoe) via Divine Light. | Lacks the Sacrament of Baptism (Character not received). | Limbo of the Just (Natural peace, Supernatural deprivation) |
Here is the revised version of the monograph. Awaiting your charitable criticisms.
Zoe, Soteria, and the Inviolable Necessity of the Church
A Re-examination of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in Light of the Magisterium of Pius IX
Prefatory Definitions: The Grammar of Eternity
This thesis rests on the precise, traditional meaning of key theological terms, particularly the distinction found in Scripture between "Life" and "Salvation."
Terminology Latin Definition and Theological Function Zoe (Eternal Life) Aeternam Vitam The Interior State of Grace (Spiritual Vitality). Accessible to the Invincibly Ignorant via "Divine Light" (Pius IX). It secures the soul against Hell. Soteria (Salvation) Salvari The Juridical Status of being "Rescued," clothed in the Baptismal Character (the Wedding Garment), and granted immediate access to the Beatific Vision (BV). Mediated exclusively by the Church. The Debt of Nature Poena Damni The remaining spiritual deficit (lack of the Baptismal Character) after justification. Distinct from the Guilt of sin. Invincibly Ignorant (II) N/A Persons who, through no fault of their own, adhere to the natural law and cooperate with God's sufficient grace (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore).
Abstract
This monograph offers a final resolution to the EENS paradox. It asserts that the Invincibly Ignorant attain Zoe (Eternal Life) through sufficient grace, which clears them of the guilt of personal sin and heresy, in accordance with the promises of Pius IX. However, this grace is insufficient to remove the Debt of Nature(the lack of the Baptismal Character), thereby barring them from Soteria (immediate Beatific Vision). This dual outcome preserves the integrity of EENS, honors divine mercy, and rigorously defends the indispensable necessity of the Sacraments.
Part I: The "Pius IX Paradox" and the Miracle Fallacy
The core conflict arises from holding two absolute truths: the necessity of the visible Church (EENS) and the justice of God. The paradox is summarized by the contrasting statements of Pope Pius IX:
- The Exclusion: "Out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved [salvari]..." (Singulari Quadam)
- The Exception: "Able to attain eternal life [aeternam vitam] by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)
The Final Defense: Rejecting the "Miracle Fallacy"
Standard neo-scholastic theology often attempts to reconcile this by claiming God sends a missionary or angel to baptize the Invincibly Ignorant at the moment of death. We reject this "Miraculous Conversion" theory because it renders the Magisterium redundant.
Pius IX's Claim: The Pope solemnly assures the faithful that the Invincibly Ignorant "would not be held guilty" for their lack of knowledge.
- The Logical Flaw: If the Invincibly Ignorant must undergo a miraculous conversion to be saved, the Pope's statement is redundant, as a converted Catholic is always held guiltless.
- The Conclusion: The Pope's words are only meaningful if we affirm that sufficient grace operates within the state of ignorance, justifying them for Zoe without requiring a conversion miracle for Soteria.
Part II: The Sacramental Economy and the Bar to Soteria
If the Invincibly Ignorant possess Zoe but lack the Sacraments, what is their status?
1. Justification vs. Purification: The Distinction of Debt
We distinguish between the Guilt of Sin and the Debt of Nature.
- Guilt Removed (Zoe Achieved): The "Divine Light and Grace" provided to the Invincibly Ignorant removes the guilt (enmity with God) caused by original and personal sin. Crucially, this assumes the person is observing the Natural Law and is not in a state of unrepented personal mortal sin.
- Debt Remains (Soteria Bar): The debt—defined here as the lack of the Baptismal Character (formal incorporation into Christ's mystical Body)—remains. This Character is the "Key" to the immediate Beatific Vision. Without it, the soul is Justified but locked out of the Bridal Chamber.
2. The New Covenant "Limbus Patrum"
The state of the Invincibly Ignorant who die in grace is analogous to the Old Testament Patriarchs:
Entity State of Grace (Guilt) Impediment (Debt) Intermediate Destination OT Fathers(Abraham, Moses) Possessed Grace (Zoe) and were Friends of God. Lacked the Sacrament of the Cross (Redemption not yet applied). Limbus Patrum (Natural peace, Supernatural deprivation) Invincibly Ignorant (The Just Nations) Possess Grace (Zoe) via Divine Light. Lacks the Sacrament of Baptism (Character not received). Limbo of the Just (Natural peace, Supernatural deprivation)
The Invincibly Ignorant wait in a state of supernatural peace because, while their guilt is remitted, the debtremains unfulfilled by the Sacramental economy.
3. The Final Resolution: The General Judgment
The deprivation of Soteria is a delay, not a permanent condemnation.
- The Event: The General Resurrection at the End of Days.
- The Mechanism: The Resurrection serves as the final, universal redemptive act, superseding the need for the individual Sacramental Character (which was necessary for the intermediate state).
- The Outcome: The Invincibly Ignorant, possessing Zoe, are resurrected and fully integrated into the glorious, embodied bliss of the New Heaven and New Earth, enjoying the Beatific Vision as their final reward.
Part III: The Inviolable Necessity of the Church
If the Invincibly Ignorant eventually reach the New Heaven, does the Church matter? The Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus retains its absolute force as the truth of Spiritual Survival and Highest Perfection.
1. Necessity for Perfection (Soteria)
The Church is the sole mediator of the Sacraments, which alone remit the Debt of Nature and guarantee immediate access to the Beatific Vision upon death. To be without the Church is to suffer the deprivation and "long waiting" of the outer courts—a loss of incalculable magnitude compared to the immediate bliss of the Bride.
2. Necessity for Safety (The Argument from Moral Probability)
While it is possible to have Zoe outside the Church, it is statistically improbable to maintain it.
- The Danger: The Invincibly Ignorant lack the Sacraments (Penance and Eucharist), which are the primary medicines against concupiscence.
- The Reality: Without these aids, consistently observing the Natural Law and avoiding mortal sin is extraordinarily difficult.
- The Imperative: Therefore, the Church is the "Ark of Salvation" not only because it carries us to the final port, but because it protects us from the waves of sin that drown the unaided soul. To be outside is to tread water in a storm; while God can sustain you, the likelihood of drowning (Mortal Sin) is immense.
Conclusion
We evangelize not to save men from a cruel God, but to save them from the darkness of error, the peril of sin, and the sorrowful waiting of the Limbus Patrum. We invite them instead into the guaranteed, immediate, and complete perfection (Soteria) of the Bride of Christ.
| Category | Primary NL Precept Violated | Specific Mortal Sins that Forfeit Zoe |
I. Against God, Worship, and Truth | Duty to the First Cause and Truth | Culpable Idolatry, Blasphemy/Perjury, Superstition. Culpable Ignorance: Willful failure to seek the truth about the highest good (Creator). Contemptuous Refusal of Public Worship: Grave and willful denial of the rational duty to publicly acknowledge the Creator. |
II. Against Life and Preservation | Preservation of Being/Health(Commandment V, III) | Murder, Grave Physical Assault. Grave Refusal of Necessary Rest:Willful refusal of necessary repose that leads to serious harm to health or rational capacity. |
III. Against Justice and Reputation | Justice/Charity(Commandment IV, VII, VIII, X) | Grave Theft/Fraud, Unjust Wages, Oppression of Vulnerable, Grave Failure of Filial Duty. Calumny/Detraction/Contumely: Maliciously destroying a neighbor's reputation/honor. |
IV. Against sɛҳuąƖ Order (Intrinsically Evil Acts) | Teleology/Purity(Commandment VI) | Adultery, Sodomy/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Acts, Coitus Interruptus / Sterilization. |
V. Against Interior Purity/Justice | Integrity of Will(Commandment IX & X) | Mortal Desire: Deliberate, firm consent to the interior desire to commit an external act of mortal sin (e.g., plan to steal/commit adultery). |
And yet, are you aware of this? If I am not mistaken, this chapel has a habit of using CathInfo posts as some sort of authoritative source. :smirk:
http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic%20Controversies/Sedevacantists%20and%20Conservative%20Catholics-%20Unity%20in%20Error_%20Both%20believe%20Pope%20is%20Rule%20of%20Faith.htm
(http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic Controversies/Sedevacantists and Conservative Catholics- Unity in Error_ Both believe Pope is Rule of Faith.htm)
http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/MISSION%20STATEMENT%20MEMBRSHIP%20PLEDGE.htm
SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission
Membership Pledge
The members of the Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission, in fulfillment of the solemn obligations of their baptism, have joined together in a lay apostolate to work toward the sanctification of their souls by restoring to the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg and defending the Ecclesiastical Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, the patrimony and right of all Catholics, as necessary attributes of the Catholic Faith without which that Faith cannot be known or communicated to others. The primary focus of these efforts are the propagation of the “received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments,” most importantly of which is the immemorial Roman Rite of the Mass for the holy and acceptable public worship of God, as codified by Pope St. Pius V (found in the 1955 or previous edition of the Missale Romanum); the defense of all Catholic dogmas in their literal sense as formal objects of “divine and Catholic faith”; and in the providing of sound traditional catechetical instructions for the purpose of promoting the Truths of our Faith for the greater glory of God and the conversion of souls to the Catholic Church, “outside of which there is no salvation” nor the forgiveness of sins. The members observe holy Catholic obedience to our Holy Father, the Pope of Rome, and his delegated representative, the local ordinary of the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg, in all things that are not contrary to, or could in any way impede directly or indirectly, the restoration and defense of the immemorial traditions of the Catholic Church and the defense of Catholic dogma.
The Members, in following the exhortation of Pope St. Pius X to “restore all things in Christ,” bound together in acts of prayer and penance, will engage in any form of Catholic Action, which is related to the divine mission of the Church in establishing and extending the Kingship of Jesus Christ to everyone; individuals, families and society. So help us God.
Furthermore, the members have pledged to offer the daily Rosary, a weekly day of fast (on Tuesday if possible), and a monthly one hour act of reparation before the Blessed Sacrament as a minimum to our Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessed Mother to win from their hearts the grace and blessings for the success of this enterprise.
____________________
Signature
SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission
P. O. Box 7352
York, PA 17408
Here is the revised version of the monograph. Awaiting your charitable criticisms.
Where and when does the doctrine of BOB/BOD originate? I have seen it mentioned in an early 1900's book of Catholic doctrine, and in a 1892 lives of the saints, not that those prove anything other than how long such teaching has been around for without being removed from books.Early church, some saints speculated on it some did not. Eg. St Gregory nαzιanzus denied BoD but accepted BoB.
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical docuмents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
What I see with BOD, is a lax, or slowness to Baptize. I actually heard a nun say, " Oh, there is BOD, and no hurry". Bologna I say!But that person had the sin of presumption. It does not mean that BoD is not a thing because people use it improperly..
Giles: you bring up good questions. Yes, the thoughts were in minds of theologians, saints. The best I read was, If one had desires to be baptized, and/or receiving classes, when they die, bury them as IF they are catholic. We don't claim they are, for that is God's judgement. We don't know. We go by what we know and that is "There is no salvation outside the Church".Canon law states that catechumans don't receive Christian burial. Catholic doctrine says that only those baptise and profess the truth faith are members of the Church.
It does not surprise me that this being most important, Baptism, and EENS, is attacked by adversaries.
What I see with BOD, is a lax, or slowness to Baptize. I actually heard a nun say, " Oh, there is BOD, and no hurry". Bologna I say!
Knowledge begets Attitude, begets Behavior. KAB. Communist go by this idea. Watch out for it.
But that person had the sin of presumption. It does not mean that BoD is not a thing because people use it improperly..Because most trads do not believe EENS. And they viciously attack those who do by calling us heretics.
I still don't get why we argue about this sooo much. We need to just convert everybody as best we can using EENS Period. End of story.
Says the man who puts Leonard Feeney's interpretation of those teachings ABOVE the interpretation of Pius IX.The reign of Pope Pius IX was thirty-two years. I find it admirable how so many Catholic individuals are just yearning to find a way to put noxious heretics into heaven because they are so sincere in their heresies. The poor native who was on a desert island, sucking on Coca Cola, looking at his cellphone, but could not find out about the Church. Poor guy! It is laughable to think that everything Pope Pius IX has written is infallible. When the pope writes an Encyclical - even if he is a pre-Vatican II pope - is just as fallible as any other theologian. The only exception is an Encyclical which invokes the charism of infallibility, and even then usually only one or two sentences are the subject of infallibility.
Because most trads do not believe EENS. And they viciously attack those who do by calling us heretics.If I don't get it and others don't get it and there is no official docuмent from the church condemning BoD or defining BoD, then it is still up for discussion. Correct?
They are also using a false version of BoD to gut EENS. This have been explained many times and you still don't seem to get it. (Also no version of BoD is 'correct' but the Saints speculated for catechumans only).
If I don't get it and others don't get it and there is no official docuмent from the church condemning BoD or defining BoD, then it is still up for discussion. Correct?
If you are talking about people who are Novus Ordo Catholics and people who follow the SSPX then of course they do not believe in EENS, because they have been taught incorrectly. I am just tired of non theologians, people who have no authority in the Church what so ever deciding that this topic has been dogmatically decided and people can call others heretics because of it. Do not be naive BoDers and Non-BoDers both call each other heretics in a heated debate. In this day and age nobody seems to know their proper place with God. Just saying.
The reign of Pope Pius IX was thirty-two years. I find it admirable how so many Catholic individuals are just yearning to find a way to put noxious heretics into heaven because they are so sincere in their heresies. The poor native who was on a desert island, sucking on Coca Cola, looking at his cellphone, but could not find out about the Church. Poor guy! It is laughable to think that everything Pope Pius IX has written is infallible. When the pope writes an Encyclical - even if he is a pre-Vatican II pope - is just as fallible as any other theologian. The only exception is an Encyclical which invokes the charism of infallibility, and even then usually only one or two sentences are the subject of infallibility.What's really funny is that Pope Pius IX never said that the invincible ignorant is saved in ignorance. Modernists have twisted his words to add stuff that isn't there. He never said he is saved in ignorance or without baptism or without faith, instead he says he is saved by the 'Divine Light' which is of course baptism/the faith. So he is really saying God will provide the means.
If I don't get it and others don't get it and there is no official docuмent from the church condemning BoD or defining BoD, then it is still up for discussion. Correct?Most people extend BoD to non-catechumans, this is heresy and contrary to the speculation of some Saints.
If you are talking about people who are Novus Ordo Catholics and people who follow the SSPX then of course they do not believe in EENS, because they have been taught incorrectly. I am just tired of non theologians, people who have no authority in the Church what so ever deciding that this topic has been dogmatically decided and people can call others heretics because of it. Do not be naive BoDers and Non-BoDers both call each other heretics in a heated debate. In this day and age nobody seems to know their proper place with God. Just saying.
If I don't get it and others don't get it and there is no official docuмent from the church condemning BoD or defining BoD, then it is still up for discussion. Correct?Well Gray, we say that Trent condemns a BOD as "some sort of metaphor." All the proponents of a BOD did was name "the metaphor" BOD. What we do have is the Church infallibly decreeing that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. As such, anyone lacking that which is necessary for salvation can not, per the Church, attain salvation.
If you are talking about people who are Novus Ordo Catholics and people who follow the SSPX then of course they do not believe in EENS, because they have been taught incorrectly. I am just tired of non theologians, people who have no authority in the Church what so ever deciding that this topic has been dogmatically decided and people can call others heretics because of it. Do not be naive BoDers and Non-BoDers both call each other heretics in a heated debate. In this day and age nobody seems to know their proper place with God. Just saying.
Gray,Wow. I have been in tradition for 20+ years. And I can't believe you write something like this publicly instead of privately. Just because you have been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean you have the correct answers. And yes 2 years ago i was emotional about the Crisis and the lack of charity among traditionalists. I now have just learned to accept that people will mostly do what they want because all of us are contaminated by pride.
My husband and I spoke to you at SSP&P chapel in York after Mass about 2 years ago when you visited on a Dominican saint Feast because your priest was not well. You were all emotion attacking "Feenyism". You brought it up. When dogma was mentioned, you had absolutely no idea what it was and asked the question "Where do I find dogma?" You are correct, there are no theologians here but some, have been long time Catholics, some for 50+ years in tradition. As a convert and recent in tradition, I respectfully suggest you dedicate your time on subjects you know more about. I've enjoyed some of your topics. "Just saying".
Again the solution to all this doesn't require getting into the weeds on this topic.Yes, this is the solution. If one wants to understand a complex theological question, one has to read, study and research. If you don't, fine. Go find another topic.
Yes, this is the solution. If one wants to understand a complex theological question, one has to read, study and research. If you don't, fine. Go find another topic.Without the proper authorities in check how does a bunch of lay people discussing the matter accomplish anything.
Without the proper authorities in check how does a bunch of lay people discussing the matter accomplish anything.Part of it is doctrinal, part is theory. The Church has YET to decide the matter, so there's no "proper authorities" to speak of, except the Saints and a few statements from Rome. With research and time, you can pretty well determine the parameters of the question (i.e. Saying "this" is going too far into heresy; saying "that" is an acceptable theory).
Wow. I have been in tradition for 20+ years. And I can't believe you write something like this publicly instead of privately. Just because you have been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean you have the correct answers. And yes 2 years ago i was emotional about the Crisis and the lack of charity among traditionalists. I now have just learned to accept that people will mostly do what they want because all of us are contaminated by pride.
Again the solution to all this doesn't require getting into the weeds on this topic. It just requires Catholics doing their best to convert people to Truth. It should be used as a motivation for us to do the correct thing and not a stick to beat people with.
Here is the clarity that you need to answer my question. I wanted the specific dogma that has been handed to us from the Catholic Church in regards to BoD and BoB. What happens with me, when I am trying to think on my feet, my words come out all jumbled. It is a humiliation that I have been living with for a long time. So please provide the official teaching of the Church that condemns BoD and BoB. If it has not been decided yet, then just say that.
Mea culpa on the 20 years. I would not have guessed from our conversation.
No doubt your intention is good but the fight is for the faith. In order “to convert people to Truth”, we must know the Catholic faith.
Faith is believing what God has revealed. Without faith it is impossible to please God [Hebrews 11:6] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=11&l=6). The remote rule of faith is found in Scripture and Tradition, The Proximate rule of faith is Dogma which is divine revelation infallibly defined and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is the end of theological speculation.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm)".
Dogma is, as Pope St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven”.
In St. Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, the word dogma appears 6 times and in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in speaking of the Modernists and their goal (the destruction of dogma) the word dogma appears over 30 times.
To answer your question 2 years ago, “Where do I find dogma”? You can start with every article of every Creed, they are ALL dogmas.
Everyone is subject to dogma including the popes. Dogma is (again) Truth, a weapon against every heresy in defending the Catholic faith against heretical Authority.
You can also find dogma in the Canons of The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Every Canon is an infallibly defined dogma.
Any one that denies, rejects or corrupts a dogma is by definition, a heretic. The Church has always taught that denying one dogma is enough to send a person to Hell.
But according to Neo Modernists, the definition of a "Feeneyite Heretic" :facepalm: is someone who believes in the literal meaning of dogma. So, if you ignore or don't understand Truth, how are you going to teach it? Read all the Creeds carefully and prayerfully including the Athanasian Creed. St. Agustine said: "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand". That, is faith.
According to non-Feeneyites, the problem is Feeneyites not understanding a particular dogma as the Church understands it.
Mea culpa on the 20 years. I would not have guessed from our conversation.
No doubt your intention is good but the fight is for the faith. In order “to convert people to Truth”, we must know the Catholic faith.
Faith is believing what God has revealed. Without faith it is impossible to please God [Hebrews 11:6] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=11&l=6). The remote rule of faith is found in Scripture and Tradition, The Proximate rule of faith is Dogma which is divine revelation infallibly defined and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is the end of theological speculation.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm)".
Dogma is, as Pope St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven”.
In St. Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, the word dogma appears 6 times and in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in speaking of the Modernists and their goal (the destruction of dogma) the word dogma appears over 30 times.
To answer your question 2 years ago, “Where do I find dogma”? You can start with every article of every Creed, they are ALL dogmas.
Everyone is subject to dogma including the popes. Dogma is (again) Truth, a weapon against every heresy in defending the Catholic faith against heretical Authority.
You can also find dogma in the Canons of The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Every Canon is an infallibly defined dogma.
Any one that denies, rejects or corrupts a dogma is by definition, a heretic. The Church has always taught that denying one dogma is enough to send a person to Hell.
But according to Neo Modernists, the definition of a "Feeneyite Heretic" :facepalm: is someone who believes in the literal meaning of dogma. So, if you ignore or don't understand Truth, how are you going to teach it? Read all the Creeds carefully and prayerfully including the Athanasian Creed. St. Agustine said: "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand". That, is faith.
Without the proper authorities in check how does a bunch of lay people discussing the matter accomplish anything.Can anybody talk to the bold point particularity?
Since people do not accept the Baltimore Catechism, does that mean we had false popes before V2? And how far back do we go? Does that mean the Church is defectible?
All of this has to make sense and if you don't patiently take the time to discuss this with idiots like me then all you really want is an echo chamber of everyone agreeing with you (all the people who follow Father Feeney.)
Can anybody talk to the bold point particularity?Most catechisms, when taken in their entirety, are most certainly not infallible. Men often interject their opinions into their catechisms, and their opinions are oftentimes most certainly fallacious. It is so ridiculous when Catholics mumble so much gibberish and then say, "Well, the catechism says." Very often it is the case that the more recent (redacted) catechisms will state what the original catechism did not state. The modernists do these tricks all the time.
Here is a quote from the 1941 version of the Baltimore Catechism.
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson24.html
This was being taught, and you are saying that the Baltimore Catechism was teaching error to all people in 1941?
This causes a great scandal.
Most catechisms, when taken in their entirety, are most certainly not infallible. Men often interject their opinions into their catechisms, and their opinions are oftentimes most certainly fallacious. It is so ridiculous when Catholics mumble so much gibberish and then say, "Well, the catechism says." Very often it is the case that the more recent (redacted) catechisms will state what the original catechism did not state. The modernists do these tricks all the time.But doesn't the Catechism have an Imprimatur. This Catechism goes back to 1885.
Most catechisms, when taken in their entirety, are most certainly not infallible. Men often interject their opinions into their catechisms, and their opinions are oftentimes most certainly fallacious. It is so ridiculous when Catholics mumble so much gibberish and then say, "Well, the catechism says." Very often it is the case that the more recent (redacted) catechisms will state what the original catechism did not state. The modernists do these tricks all the time.
According to non-Feeneyites, the problem is Feeneyites not understanding a particular dogma as the Church understands it.
"The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . ."
But doesn't the Catechism have an Imprimatur. This Catechism goes back to 1885.An Imprimatur simply says that the cardinal or bishop who put their signature to the book gives it his approval - which *should* mean the approval of the Church, but remember, there are tons of NO books out there with an imprimatur, there are also books on the "forbidden book index" with imprimaturs.
Please show me errors in other Catechisms, again I need to see precedents of error be put forth by those claiming to be Catholic. If the Church is not protected, then why are we all here? How do we know for certain that Martin Luther was not right in his 95 theses?
Also questions 644, 650, 651, 652, 653, and 654 are on this topic from Baltimore Catechism #3, the Imprimatur given by John Cardinal McCloskey (NY) and James Cardinal Gibbons (Baltimore).
And would this not create generations of people who do not understand the Catholic Faith.
Maybe we have not had a unified Catholic Church, since King Henry VIII decided he wanted a male heir?
Maybe everything after the Council of Trent is debatable?
Maybe Pius the V was that last true Pope and every Pope after that was an anti-Pope?
Doctor John Hogan, the present Rector of the Irish College in Rome, writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a
work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an
authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church
and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their
combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology.
Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to
individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole
body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a
place between approved catechisms and what is de fide."
Here is the clarity that you need to answer my question. I wanted the specific dogma that has been handed to us from the Catholic Church in regards to BoD and BoB. What happens with me, when I am trying to think on my feet, my words come out all jumbled. It is a humiliation that I have been living with for a long time. So please provide the official teaching of the Church that condemns BoD and BoB. If it has not been decided yet, then just say that.
Gray,You are dancing around my main question. Did the Church defect from itself over 100 years ago? The Baltimore Catechism is clear on the points of BoB and BoD. The Church cannot teach error. If the Catechism that has been distributed all over the world teaches this error, then basically what we know of the protections of the Church is all lies. It is really no longer about Father Feeney.
Merry and Stubborn have already posted a sound reply to your questions, please read these replies carefully on the links below which I fully endorse. Those are all dogmas:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1014704/#msg1014704 (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1014704/#msg1014704)
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1015080/#msg1015080 (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1015080/#msg1015080)
You are dancing around my main question. Did the Church defect from itself over 100 years ago? The Baltimore Catechism is clear on the points of BoB and BoD. The Church cannot teach error. If the Catechism that has been distributed all over the world teaches this error, then basically what we know of the protections of the Church is all lies. It is really no longer about Father Feeney.
The Church cannot defect! You already got excellent replies on catechisms not being infallible. I have nothing to add to them.
According to non-Feeneyites, the problem is Feeneyites not understanding a particular dogma as the Church understands it.
So ... as usual, it's never about logic for the promoters of BoD. They've made up their mind beforehand what they want to believe for various ulterior motives.Ladislaus, I am honestly asking questions which are not being answered.
... as if the Baltimore Catechism were infallible and is the equivalent of the "Church teaching".
Msgr. Fenton takes apart the Baltimore Catechism on the subject of salvation.
We have here someone who's bought into the sedevacantist narrative where they make this statement that "[t]he Church cannot teach error" into some absolute, which renders nonsensical any definition of papal infallibility, making it so that an allocution given by a Pope might as well have been a solemn dogmatic definition, such as that of the Immaculate Conception.
This individual goes so far as to claim this of the Baltimore Catechism, rendering the mindset more and more ridiculouser as she progresses, and I've even encountered a sedevacantists who claimed that any book with an imprimatur on it must be regarded as error free, and protected from error.
Now, this attitude leads to bizarre psychological problems and neuroses.
So ... as usual, it's never about logic for the promoters of BoD. They've made up their mind beforehand what they want to believe for various ulterior motives.Also for someone who is constantly being misjudged and called names and such, I would think you would especially refrain.
... as if the Baltimore Catechism were infallible and is the equivalent of the "Church teaching".
Msgr. Fenton takes apart the Baltimore Catechism on the subject of salvation.
We have here someone who's bought into the sedevacantist narrative where they make this statement that "[t]he Church cannot teach error" into some absolute, which renders nonsensical any definition of papal infallibility, making it so that an allocution given by a Pope might as well have been a solemn dogmatic definition, such as that of the Immaculate Conception.
This individual goes so far as to claim this of the Baltimore Catechism, rendering the mindset more and more ridiculouser as she progresses, and I've even encountered a sedevacantists who claimed that any book with an imprimatur on it must be regarded as error free, and protected from error.
Now, this attitude leads to bizarre psychological problems and neuroses.
Ladislaus, I am honestly asking questions which are not being answered.Bump. I want to hear what you, Ladislaus or anyone else, have to say on this. I like to get to the heart of the matter. It didn't start with Father Feeney. It started before him. Who first started talking about BoB and BoD in the Catholic Church? I assure you that I have no preconceived notion or point I am trying to make.
Let's start with this simple question how long has this error of BoD and BoB (from your perspective, I have not decided on the issue yet) been popping up in Catechisms. This is what has been taught to converts and children for 100+ years. If this is the case, then no wonder V2 was able to do what it did.
I still think that we really don't have to get down to the nitty-gritty on this topic because if you approach everyone as if they need to be baptized by water to be saved, then there is nothing more to be discussed.
I recommend reading Desire & Deception: How Catholics Stopped Believing (https://archive.org/details/desiredeceptionh0000coul/mode/2up)Thank you. I started reading the book, but I am put off by the first section. He basically says I am a poor suffering "Feeneyite" and because I have suffered so much you should believe me. Truth stands on its own. Vying for sympathy to increase your clout is a Modernist idea. It is what the alphabet soup people do. I will continue to try and read it, but things from God come to us with humility and when i do not detect humility or someone uses emotions to make me believe them, then I am doubtful of their truth. I do admit I give women a little more slack in the emotion department, than I do men.
It traces the history of the idea of Baptism of Desire and shows how belief in EENS was eroded over time.
It's also available in paperback from https://www.amazon.com/Desire-Deception-Catholics-Stopped-Believing/dp/0984236511
Bump. I want to hear what you, Ladislaus or anyone else, have to say on this. I like to get to the heart of the matter. It didn't start with Father Feeney. It started before him. Who first started talking about BoB and BoD in the Catholic Church? I assure you that I have no preconceived notion or point I am trying to make.
Bump. I want to hear what you, Ladislaus or anyone else, have to say on this. I like to get to the heart of the matter. It didn't start with Father Feeney. It started before him. Who first started talking about BoB and BoD in the Catholic Church? I assure you that I have no preconceived notion or point I am trying to make.[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Here's St Thomas Aquinas' teaching:
Council of Trent Session 7 CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori on Trent, Session 7 Canon IV:
Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori on Trent, Session 7 Canon IV:Excellent catch Stubborn.
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)"
Excellent catch Stubborn.Good morning Tarmac, I brought this up to BODers about mid-December..none seemed to want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Maybe you want to take a stab at it
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) teaches: “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”- Moral Theology Book 6.
Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
Sess. 5
Decree Concerning Original Sin
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
Not every Catholic book has the Imprimatur, which simply means "it may be printed."
Excellent catch Stubborn.See, here we have the great saint correctly saying on the one hand that baptism is necessary for all, and that it is the Eucharist, not baptism, that may be had by desire (Spiritual Communion) which Trent was referring to when they used the words "or the desire thereof."
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) teaches: “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”- Moral Theology Book 6.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation [justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Good morning Tarmac, I brought this up to BODers about mid-December..none seemed to want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Maybe you want to take a stab at itWorldsAway I seem to have missed your post about this in December. Here is St Thomas Aquinas touching on the matter long before The Council of Trent. This is what he says among other things:
St Alphonsus' says BOD is de fide, and he gives us a definition of it. Here it is, reposted, please note the bolded:
Now here is what Trent teaches:
Please note that Trent says that unless you are born again, you would never be justified
Now see how Trent describes the man "born again", especially the last sentence.
Compare this with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, which he believed to be de fide
WorldsAway I seem to have missed your post about this in December. Here is St Thomas Aquinas touching on the matter long before The Council of Trent. This is what he says among other things:Right, I'm referring specifically to St. Alphonsus' writings on BOD, after Trent. St. Alphonsus is regularly cited by BODers as an authority on the issue, especially the fact that he held BOD to be de fide.
Objection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Council of Trent Sess. 5
Decree Concerning Original Sin
Chapter 5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
Baptism of desire is[...]accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes[...]not as to [...]the removal of all debt of punishment.
For, in those who are born again[...]absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified
And yet St. Alphonsus in his own tract on the Matter of Baptism says that "blood is certainly invalid matter" of the sacrament, materia certe invalida est, sanguis. So let me get this straight, I cannot baptize someone with blood, but if I am unbaptized, I am able to baptize myself in my own blood. He says that martyrdom is not a sacrament because it was not an "action instituted by Christ," quia martyrium non esse actio instituta a Christo. Christ instituted the sacraments, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation, period, end of story.
And he also says that martyrdom does not strictly operate as the sacraments do, and that neither martyrdom nor baptismus flaminis "baptism of desire" confers the character. He says that "flaminis" means impulse of the Holy Spirit, impulsum Spiritus Sancti. Once again, this is vague and can mean many things.
Right, I'm referring specifically to St. Alphonsus' writings on BOD, after Trent. St. Alphonsus is regularly cited by BODers as an authority on the issue, especially the fact that he held BOD to be de fide.
Do you have any comment on St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD (what he said was de fide, and now BODers claim as well) and how it relates to what Trent dogmatically taught about the man "born again" (posted above)?
Here is St. Alphonsus' definition again, please note the bolded:
And here is Trent, please note the bolded:
St Alphonsus:
Trent:
Right, I'm referring specifically to St. Alphonsus' writings on BOD, after Trent. St. Alphonsus is regularly cited by BODers as an authority on the issue, especially the fact that he held BOD to be de fide.St Alphonsus is perfectly in line with Trent. BoD is not a sacrament but just analogically so as it lacks matter and form. If St Alphonsus was in error in his teaching on BoD, he would have been condemned but instead was canonised by Gregory XVI and later proclaimed doctor of the Church by Pius IX.
Do you have any comment on St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD (what he said was de fide, and now BODers claim as well) and how it relates to what Trent dogmatically taught about the man "born again" (posted above)?
Here is St. Alphonsus' definition again, please note the bolded:
And here is Trent, please note the bolded:
St Alphonsus:
Trent:
From The Catholic EncyclopediaEph. 4:5
Substitutes for the sacrament
St Alphonsus is perfectly in line with Trent. BoD is not a sacrament but just analogically so as it lacks matter and form. If St Alphonsus was in error in his teaching on BoD, he would have been condemned but instead was canonised by Gregory XVI and later proclaimed doctor of the Church by Pius IX.So when you are presented with St. Alphonsus seemingly being in error regarding the effects of BOD while attempting to define it (one of the same BOD definitions BODers use to support their arguments)...all you have to say is.."St. Alphonsus was correct. If he was incorrect, he would have been condemned".
Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.
For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
1) These terms mean they are free of MAJOR error (i.e. heresy).
It is true that catechisms are not infallible. It is also true that catechisms approved by the Church contain the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat, the latter meaning that the Church declares the work to be free of doctrinal and moral error.
ALL of these approved catechisms teach BOD / BOB.
Now ... a strictly limited BoD such as what St. Robert held, would not create fatal damage to Catholic ecclesiology, where it's only possible for Catechumens and those who are practically such, with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, and intending to become Catholic (even if their status had not been formalized).Correct. The BOD of St Thomas/St Robert, for CATECHUMENS, is not heresy.
But the SECOND you extend BoD to anyone else, to infidels, for instance, or to heretics (and it's laughable, and exposes their motivation when some apply BoD to even baptized Protestants), but once you extend the possibility of salvation to non-Catholics ... YOU HAVEN'T GOT A LEG TO STAND ON IN OPPOSING VATICAN II.BOD for non-catechumens (i.e. those who are still in, accepting, practicing non-catholic religions) is heresy.
If St Alphonsus was in error in his teaching on BoD, he would have been condemned but instead was canonised by Gregory XVI:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: This is just HORRIBLE logic and a lack of understanding of how the Church works. St Thomas' Summa has multiple errors in it; was he condemned? No, because what he wrote wasn't heresy, but only a theological error. Same with St Alphonsus.
So when you are presented with St. Alphonsus seemingly being in error regarding the effects of BOD while attempting to define it (one of the same BOD definitions BODers use to support their arguments)...all you have to say is.."St. Alphonsus was correct. If he was incorrect, he would have been condemned".Here you go putting sacramantal Baptism and BoD into the same boat. When St Alphonsus says that the guilt of original sin is removed by BoD and not the temporal punishment due he is talking explicitly about BoD. Unlike sacramental Baptism or Baptism with water which remits the guilt of original sin and any temporal punishment due.
Was St. Alphonsus infallible? Was every single thing he ever wrote canonized with him? Do you believe there is any chance at all that there can be an error in a Church Fathers or Doctors writings?
Are you really so obstinate that you cannot even acknowledge the apparent contradiction as it's staring you in the face?
St. Alphonsus:
TRENT:
If there is no contradiction here, explain it.
Explain how "debt of punishment''" remaining conforms with "absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven"
Explain how "debt of punishment"="absolutely nothing"
Here you go putting sacramantal Baptism and BoD into the same boat. When St Alphonsus says that the guilt of original sin is removed by BoD and not the temporal punishment due he is talking explicitly about BoD. Unlike sacramental Baptism or Baptism with water which remits the guilt of original sin and any temporal punishment due.I never said he was referring to anything other than BOD, that's not the issue.
Council of Trent Sess. 5
Decree Concerning Original Sin
Chapter 5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Here you go putting sacramantal Baptism and BoD into the same boat. When St Alphonsus says that the guilt of original sin is removed by BoD and not the temporal punishment due he is talking explicitly about BoD. Unlike sacramental Baptism or Baptism with water which remits the guilt of original sin and any temporal punishment due.
You're incredibly dense, aren't you? It's been splained to you multiple times. If you don't get it by now, then you need to just drop off the thread, pursue additional education, and perhaps come back in a few years.So that would mean you can't be justified by justification of desire?
We're saying that what "St. Alphonsus says ..." contradicts the Council of Trent, not disputing what he says.
I'll give you one more chance to follow closely. Trent is making no distinction between Baptism or BoD or any of the concepts that you hopelessly conflate.
TRENT SPEAKS OF INITIAL JUSTIFICATION in those passages, as you BoDers who constantly (and mindlessly) regurgitate this passage should know. It's not talking about Baptism OR BoD per se, but about JUSTIFICATION. You BoDers claim that JUSTIFICATION can happen by the Sacrament OR ELSE by the Desire. So those are just means of obtaining JUSTIFICATION, per your own reasoning, so I'm not sure I understand your befuddlement.
TRENT TEACHES THAT JUSTIFICATION REQUIRES REBIRTH.
TRENT THEN DEFINES REBIRTH AS A COMPLETE RENEWAL SUCH THAT NOTHING REMAINS THAT COULD EVEN DELAY ENTRY INTO HEAVEN.
Consequently, TRENT CLEARLY TEACHES THAT IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE THAT INITIAL JUSTIFICATION, THERE MUST BE A REBIRTH, IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE CAN AFTER SAID INITIAL JUSTIFICATION BE NOTHING LEFT WHICH DELAYS IMMEDIATE ENTRY INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
It's so simpley that a child could follow it, or anyone without a heretically-depraved mind.
So that would mean you can't be justified by justification of desire?
Excellent catch Stubborn.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) teaches: “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”- Moral Theology Book 6.
I've spoken with well over a dozen different priests on this topic over the years. I've gotten well over a dozen different versions of what BoD is. They are completely unable to agree amongst themselves what it is, what its effects are, who gets it, how you get it, whether it remits sin or not, whether it makes you a member of the Church or not, whether one needs explicit or implicit faith, whether it applies to just catechumens who get run over by busses on their way to baptism, or whether the ignorant savage on his proverbial desert island gets it, and on and on.
The bottom line is, they don't care what you believe about "it", just so long as you believe "it". If this is a doctrine revealed by God, the very least they can do is tell me what the heck I'm supposed to believe regarding "it".