In fact, the CMRI twice published a heretical article blasphemously entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... directly contradicting Catholic dogma in the very title.
Lad, I have never heard of this. Can you give me a link to this article?
Lad, I have never heard of this. Can you give me a link to this article?Seems it's pretty much vanished from the internet but here's this. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/fr-noel-barbara-(rip)-on-salvation/)
This video is absolutely repugnant, and the guy who posted it is undoubtedly a heretic on this matter. This might be a new account created by "Lover of Truth" (aka Lover of Heresy).
So, was this another Dimond video production?How are you so certain the Dimonds are crypto-Jews when you know so little about them that you thought they were pro-BOD? Half their vids are about how BOD is heresy.
BTW, the Dimond Bro's are "Ringers".
In other words, like Michael A. Hoffman, they're just a front for jew ghostwriters who have been attacking the traditional Catholic movement for years.
Concerning Baptism, if the SSPX, the Dimonds or anyone else believes and promotes the following... they are simply heretics.
On page 74 of +ABL's book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"., it reads:
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows amongst Protestants, Muslim, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this they become part of the Church".
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F41Y327CETVL._SY291_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_QL40_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
You Dimond fans just HATE to hear what you really sound like!If I found a believer in baptism of desire that limited it to what a Saint or a Doctor of the Church did, like St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, we could spend some time conversing about it, the why of why I do not believe in any BOD or BOB, there would be no hostility between us. However, 99% of BODers today reject St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri by their real belief that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews..... people in all "religions" can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards and THAT is why they despise us, because we shine a light on their gaping hole, that they are all fakes pretending to teach something that no Father, Saint, or Doctor of the Church ever taught. The truth is that they reject the saints and all the dogmas on EENS, they are just seekers of teachers according to their own desires.
It must be frustrating to not have any catechism that you can use... or not to be able to look something up in canon law, any theologian, any Saint, Father or Doctor of the Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia...etc., without that little Dimond :really-mad2:devil on your shoulder telling you to QUESTION AUTHORITY and put it back!!
Typical PROTESTANTISM!
Feeneyism is the modern John Law Bubble! And the Dimonds are spreading around enough paper to try to keep it afloat!!
Zero logic and lots of zeal!
And not Catholic!
How dare those impostors and wannabe theologians spread their illiterate garbage and conscious falsehood amongst Catholics who want to learn their faith!
May God forgive the Dimonds and Rev. Crawford...
How are you so certain the Dimonds are crypto-Jews when you know so little about them that you thought they were pro-BOD? Half their vids are about how BOD is heresy.
"Raised in a family with no religion, Bro. Michael Dimond converted to Catholicism at the age of 15. Brother Michael Dimond entered Most Holy Family Monastery in 1992 at the age of 19, a short time after graduating from high school. Brother Michael Dimond’s father graduated from Princeton University in New Jersey and his mother graduated from Stanford University in California. Brother Michael Dimond was elected superior of Most Holy Family Monastery in late 1995. Bro. Dimond took his final vows before a validly ordained priest".
“The Abbot who is worthy to be over a monastery, ought always to be mindful of what he is called, and make his works square with his name of Superior. For he is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery, when he is called by his name, according to the saying of the Apostle: "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba (Father)" (Rom 8:15). Therefore, the Abbot should never teach, prescribe, or command (which God forbid) anything contrary to the laws of the Lord; but his commands and teaching should be instilled like a leaven of divine justice into the minds of his disciples.”In order to be validly elected to the office of Abbot (Superior) what is required?
- The Holy Rule of St. Benedict (http://www.23rdstreet.com/pdf/rules_of_st_benedict.pdf)
In order to be validly elected to the office of abbot it is required that a monk be:So as you can see from the above … Frederick “Michael” Dimond did NOT meet the "traditional" requirements to become a validly recognized Benedictine Superior. So one can assume that Frederick's MHFM simply created their own set of "Novus Ordo" rules (for lack of a better description) to support their specific needs.
- at least thirty years of age; (Frederick was 22 years old)
- solemnly professed for at least seven years (CIC 623); (Frederick was a lay brother not an O.S.B.. And even if he had been allowed to profess he would have only been in the MHFM for 3 years)
- an ordained priest; (Frederick was never ordained a priest)
- a member of the Congregation. (no affiliation whatsoever with the Congregation but that’s understandable as Frederick is a sedevacantist or at least turned that way after stealing Richard Ibrayni’s work on the subject)
I'm confused. You'll not find anywhere in the world a more violent opposition to Baptism of Desire than from the Dimonds. This video was not put out by the Dimonds; it's an attack against them.What sets the CMRI apart from anyone else here?
This video is absolutely repugnant, and the guy who posted it is undoubtedly a heretic on this matter. This might be a new account created by "Lover of Truth" (aka Lover of Heresy).
His Avatar of +Thuc suggests that it's yet another CMRI heretic. You won't find more contempt for the EENS dogma anywhere else than in the CMRI. These guys make it their crusade, their mission in life, to attack and undermine EENS. In fact, the CMRI twice published a heretical article blasphemously entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... directly contradicting Catholic dogma in the very title.
What sets the CMRI apart from anyone else here?
Ladislaus and Tradhican...I know for a fact that you can't respond to the above quotes.. neither can your puppet masters fred and bob dimond. you'll just try to deflect with some nonsense, which is what the dimonds do when I write to them... and that's all you would be expected to do... just be aware of it.. is all i'm saying...but it's pretty funny that you are the ones who brought up St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Thomas Aquinas... now you have to EAT YOUR WORDS...in front of everyone!!call the dimonds and ask them what to say...
Because the CMRI posters are invariably the ones who make the promotion of BoD and undermining of EENS a veritable crusade. They're obsessed with the issue and make it their life's work to promote BoD. We've had several posters from CMRI who did nothing else but post spam against "Feeneyism" the entire time they were here.I'll be honest. On whole I'm way more bothered by what I'd consider watering down of EENS (to be clear, I'm not trying to assert that my opinion is worth much) than I am about feeneyites or the "BOD for catechumens only" position. As someone who currently takes a slightly broader position, I'm also aware of why that gets pragmatically problematic (ie. because it invariably gets abused.) I'm *FAR* more bothered by Von Balthasaar than I am by Feeney.
So, Lover of Heresy, aka "John", do you follow the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation?
There's also submission to the Roman Pontiff,
Whoops, there goes Protestants, Eastern "Orthodox", Old "Catholics", etc.
And Sedes. And SSPX Resistance...
Pope Pius IX (19th century): Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863: “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.”
7. 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.
19.
(. . .)
Let us pray that the errant be flooded with the light of his divine grace, may turn back from the path of error into the way of truth and justice and, experiencing the worthy fruit of repentance, may possess perpetual love and fear of his holy name.
6.
(. . .)
Do men like these pour forth their prayers to God that in His mercy he may bring to the Divine light of the Gospel by His victorious grace the people sitting in the darkness?
I take it you submit to the teachings of Vatican II, then?I was more commenting on the irony than anything else. Its really, really weird to take a hardline "there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation without submission to the ROman Pontiff... but we haven't had a Roman Pontiff for 61 years" type position. Or even worse a "There's certainly a Pope in Rome, but we want NOTHING to do with him."
I was more commenting on the irony than anything else. Its really, really weird to take a hardline "there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation without submission to the ROman Pontiff... but we haven't had a Roman Pontiff for 61 years" type position. Or even worse a "There's certainly a Pope in Rome, but we want NOTHING to do with him."
The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jews has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire).
Answers to Difficulties
1. 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).
13.
(. . .)
We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity.
Seems it's pretty much vanished from the internet but here's this. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/fr-noel-barbara-(rip)-on-salvation/)Thanks Stubborn!
Wow..I can log on here after 8 years and all you can do is still deflect. That was to be expected.
The LAD-IS-LOST!
You meant rather to say that you do not care about BOD as it is taught by THE CHURCH.. OFFICIALLY!
because you do not respect Church authority. Period!
You have no case but to either refer to the Dimonds.. and they are thoroughly discredited..or to deflect...
Well on the one hand i certainly find the pro BOD position more persuasive, but on the other hand, I'll note that I've not seen Ladislaus quote Dimond at all on this issue, but rather, church dogmas.
Mind, I do agree with the critique that he's interpreting them himself and that that's wrong, but he's not using the dimonds really. He doesn't agree with them either. The Dimonds are a lot more hardline on who they declare a formal heretic than he is.
Although I disagree with Lad’s BOD position, he is definitely NOT a Dimondite
It must be frustrating to not have any catechism that you can use... or not to be able to look something up in canon law, any theologian, any Saint, Father or Doctor of the Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia...etc., without that little Dimond :really-mad2:devil on your shoulder telling you to QUESTION AUTHORITY and put it back!!You're a Sede right? And you want to criticize Feeneyites for "question[ing] authority"?
Typical PROTESTANTISM!
I was more commenting on the irony than anything else. Its really, really weird to take a hardline "there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation without submission to the ROman Pontiff... but we haven't had a Roman Pontiff for 61 years" type position. Or even worse a "There's certainly a Pope in Rome, but we want NOTHING to do with him."The dogma does not say "there is absolutely no salvation without submission to the Roman Pontiff".
The dogma does not say "there is absolutely no salvation without submission to the Roman Pontiff".There might be some subtle difference here. I don't know what it would be, content wise. I acknowledge that I technically did not quote it correctly.
What the dogma *does* say, is:
"...Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff".
There might be some subtle difference here. I don't know what it would be, content wise. I acknowledge that I technically did not quote it correctly.Simply, in context "submit" means blind obedience no matter what - which obedience adults are not permitted to give any human.
DecemRationis..
The proof is cuм ex apostolatus officio, Pope Paul IV, 1559
Pretty sure that is a true Pope and that is the Magisterium of the Church..
There are other sources but that will be sufficient...
Have you even read the cuм ex apostolatus officio?Is cuм Ex still in force? Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII both updated the conclave elections laws, added to that the 1917 revamping the code of canon law. The burden of proof is on you to prove that cuм Ex is still 100% in force.
Is cuм Ex still in force? Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII both updated the conclave elections laws, added to that the 1917 revamping the code of canon law. The burden of proof is on you to prove that cuм Ex is still 100% in force.I found this:
DecemRationis--
If I see someone shooting random children in a playground or see groups of teenagers carrying baseball bats and checking random houses and cars in my neighborhood to see if they are unlocked, it is not my own, personal "private judgement" that they should be stopped. Or that they are exhibiting criminal behavior.. the law itself says that these activities are forbidden..
When I see someone with supposed authority in the Church continuously contradict so many Church teachings that they can't be counted, and when they admit to knowing it, i.e., when Ratzinger said he was promoting a "counter syllabus"... when they officially reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a meaningless "supper", complete with clowns and composed of Lutheean and Jєωιѕн prayers, it is not "private judgment " that moves me to exclaim that these are wolves in sheeps clothing, out to destroy the Church... The Church teaches that these are called heretics and since they are not members of the Church, they cannot be head of it..
Have you even read the cuм ex apostolatus officio?
The Church teaches that these are called heretics and since they are not members of the Church, they cannot be head of it..
So, if a Pope openly professed Islam, and began using Islamic prayers rather than Catholic prayers, and openly denied the divinity of Christ, and began changing all Catholic Church’s into Mosques, then Catholics must keep accepting him as their Pope, and must keep submitting to him. This situation goes on permanently, as no one can make the judgment that he has lost the Faith and is no longer a Catholic. I get it now.
So, if a Pope openly professed Islam, and began using Islamic prayers rather than Catholic prayers, and openly denied the divinity of Christ, and began changing all Catholic Church’s into Mosques, then Catholics must keep accepting him as their Pope, and must keep submitting to him. This situation goes on permanently, as no one can make the judgment that he has lost the Faith and is no longer a Catholic. I get it now.Keep submitting to him? What exactly is it that he commands us to do that we are bound to submit to?
Keep submitting to him? What exactly is it that he commands us to do that we are bound to submit to?Well, there is a lot. Read the 1983 Code, it has lots of laws that would affect you and would demonstrate your submission to Francis. Also, the 6 precepts of the Church. You would need to donate to and support to your local canonical parish, your canonical pastor, and your local ordinary.
The dogma says it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope, not submit to him.
And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public docuмents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/11/love-pope-no-ifs-and-no-buts-for.html (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/11/love-pope-no-ifs-and-no-buts-for.html)
Well, there is a lot. Read the 1983 Code, it has lots of laws that would affect you and would demonstrate your submission to Francis. Also, the 6 precepts of the Church. You would need to donate to and support to your local canonical parish, your canonical pastor, and your local ordinary.I already know he is a terrible heretic and apostate and etc., but what exactly is it that he commands, or has commanded us to do that we are bound to submit to? I'm just looking for one thing.
You would need to believe his authoritative teaching, including his teaching that teaches that there are environmental sins, as explained by Francis, etc.
What is the point of the Papacy if the subjects of the Pope judge what conforms to Tradition?
St. Pius X taught how we must love the Pope, which would demonstrate your submission:
Keep submitting to him? What exactly is it that he commands us to do that we are bound to submit to?I think if it were that blatant even the conciliar cardinals would declare that he lost his office anyways.
The dogma says it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope, not submit to him.
What does it matter if I do believe in what St. Thomas Aquinas says on the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation? I do not deny it. That is what he taught and it is not wrong.
But do you claim it heresy to believe what St. Alphonsus Liguori or Pope St. Pius X taught, not merely "tolerated" about implicit desire in the quotes that I copied above? Or Pope Pius IX? Or XII? Because that is precisely what they say.. or can you prove otherwise?
St. Augustine says that (paraphrase) if I don't understand the paradox of two teachings like that, it is always better to doubt my own mental abilities than to conclude that the Church erred.
I already know he is a terrible heretic and apostate and etc., but what exactly is it that he commands, or has commanded us to do that we are bound to submit to? I'm just looking for one thing.I think the principle you mentioned is being abused to justify positions that some have taken in this crisis. What commentary are you relying on that justifies many of the positions we see in our times, rejecting a rite of mass approved by the Pope, rejecting canons approved by the Pope, etc.
The highest principle in the Church is: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." People who think we owe blind obedience to everything and anything the conciliar popes say, do so with blatant disregard to this highest and most fundamental of Catholic principles.
I think the principle you mentioned is being abused to justify positions that some have taken in this crisis. What commentary are you relying on that justifies many of the positions we see in our times, rejecting a rite of mass approved by the Pope, rejecting canons approved by the Pope, etc."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." Gal. 1:8
I’ve never seen any, and I think it’s a made up novelty.
I’d like to see a single writing from the time of the Apostles all the way to 1960 that ever states that a rite of mass could be an abomination, or a sacrilege, or an incentive to impiety, and therefore Catholics must reject the papally approved mass.
There are 2 “approved” rites at the moment, legally speaking. Only one is morally approved, from a theological standpoint. The other is essentially optional because there is no command to attend it or accept it. Because the V2 popes have not commanded the novus ordo to be attended under any penalty of sin, so it's not a “rejection” of papal authority to ignore it. They could have made it obligatory but they didn’t. Same thing for V2.No, you don’t have to go to it under canon law, but you are still required by the precept of the Church to financially support your local canonical parish and pastor, even if you choose to fulfill your mass obligation elsewhere.
.
I know this is contrary to your sede narrative, but facts are facts. There are other legitimate reasons which support sede-ism, but this isn’t one.
"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." Gal. 1:8That doesn’t prove anything. Can the Catholic Church give evil to its flock through its approved sacramental rites? Yes or no?
That doesn’t prove anything. Can the Catholic Church give evil to its flock through its approved sacramental rites? Yes or no?You asked for something in writing, you got what you asked for.
You asked for something in writing, you got what you asked for.An answer verbally or in writing may not actually answer the question.
To answer you, of course the Church cannot give evil.
Is the pope the Church, yes or no?
An answer verbally or in writing may not actually answer the question.What leads me is the fact that the Church is Christ, they are one and the same. Christ is the head of the Church, the pope is only the visible head, we might say that as Christ's Vicar, he is Christ's deputy but our superior. We can also say that he will answer to Christ for everything he says and does - just like the rest of us. There is no escape for any of us, not even the pope.
That’s good that you say the Church cannot give evil. To say such is heresy.
The trouble with your view is that what you are saying leads you, if you are logical to say that.
The Pope is the head of the Church, his office was created not by man, but by God Himself. Whatever he binds, is bound. If he makes changes to the sacramental rites of the Church, then those changed rites are then the approved sacramental rites of the Church.
There is no way around this unless you deny Catholic teaching on the Papacy.
What leads me is the fact that the Church is Christ, they are one and the same. Christ is the head of the Church, the pope is only the visible head, we might say that as Christ's Vicar, he is Christ's deputy but our superior. We can also say that he will answer to Christ for everything he says and does - just like the rest of us. There is no escape for any of us, not even the pope.Your view diminishes the Papacy snd makes the office useless, giving lay people veto power over the Pope’s laws, as to whether they think such laws are In conformity with Tradition or not. Your view is not in conformity with Catholic teaching. It makes the Church into a democracy, rather than a monarchy.
To date, no one has mentioned exactly what it is that he is supposed to have bound us to.
As for the new [sacramental] rites, he is bound to protect and preserve them, that's why God created the office. God did not establish the papacy in order for the pope to change them into something new, something doubtful. Then again, he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible or infallibly safe.
Your view diminishes the Papacy snd makes the office useless, giving lay people veto power over the Pope’s laws, as to whether they think such laws are In conformity with Tradition or not. Your view is not in conformity with Catholic teaching. It makes the Church into a democracy, rather than a monarchy.I know right from wrong, as such I know when the pope wants me to do something wrong - we've had 2000 years worth of popes to teach us right from wrong, that's one of the ways we all know right from wrong - and what the conciliar popes do and wish we would do is wrong, and we must not follow them in their error or we will go to hell. If you like to think that makes the Church a democracy, so be it. But I know that the Church is Christ, and I belong to the Church.
I gave you an example as you requested, the Novus Ordo, promulgated by Paul VI and continued by those after him, including Francis. If these men were Popes, you are bound to submit to this new law and not attack it, knowing that any rite approved by the Pope for the Catholic Church cannot be evil, and must be an incentive to piety. Even though you can fulfill your Sunday obligation elsewhere, you are also bound by law (one of the 6 precepts of the Church) to financially support your canonical pastor at your local parish.We are bound to obey God first, because of that, we may not follow the popes in their error - and these men are true popes, true they are evil, but no one has proved they are not popes.
I know right from wrong, as such I know when the pope wants me to do something wrong - we've had 2000 years worth of popes to teach us right from wrong, that's one of the ways we all know right from wrong - and what the conciliar popes do and wish we would do is wrong, and we must not follow them in their error or we will go to hell. If you like to think that makes the Church a democracy, so be it. But I know that the Church is Christ, and I belong to the Church.Your entire theory is built on a false premise, namely that a Pope can in fact legislate a law that binds the universal Church on a liturgical matter that could be evil or a cause for impiety. In short, a Pope could never by virtue of his office do what you think he could do, thereby causing you to have to resist his law. “There ain’t no such animal in the Catholic Church.”
We are bound to obey God first, because of that, we may not follow the popes in their error - and these men are true popes, true they are evil, but no one has proved they are not popes.
We all know that the conciliar popes publicly commit grave sins and scandals, they should not do this, they must not do this - but people think that they are divinely protected from doing this - they're not. They are only protected from the slightest possibility of error when they define a dogma ex cathedra. That's it. Beyond that, they can do as they have done, namely, publicly sin all they want and remain pope. There is nothing anyone can do about it - zero, nadda, nuthin. But we don't follow them in their errors on account of them being popes - unless we want to sin.
What does it matter if I do believe in what St. Thomas Aquinas says on the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation? I do not deny it. That is what he taught and it is not wrong.[color][size][size]
But do you claim it heresy to believe what St. Alphonsus Liguori or Pope St. Pius X taught, not merely "tolerated" about implicit desire in the quotes that I copied above? Or Pope Pius IX? Or XII? Because that is precisely what they say.. or can you prove otherwise?
St. Augustine says that (paraphrase) if I don't understand the paradox of two teachings like that, it is always better to doubt my own mental abilities than to conclude that the Church erred.
St. Alphonsus did not unambiguously support the Thomistic thesis that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation is necessary for salvation.
and decemrationis could benefit from that as well.. so could ladislaus for that matter...
Rewader God theory was a novelty invented by the Jesuits around the year 1600. Until that time, no Catholic had ever taught or believed that salvation was possible without explicit knowledge of and faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. That rendered it a dogma of the OUM. Not to mention the formal/solemn expression of the same in the Athanasian creed.Given that this theory was certainly accepted at least as allowable by the Pre Vatican II magisterium, how are you not using an Eastern Orthodox epistemology by calling this heresy? This isn't an accusation. I'm just honestly confused by it.
Rewarder God theory is the watershed heresy that led ultimately to Vatican II.
Now, it's very interesting that you claim we must accept BoD because belief in it has become pervasive. But then those Jesuits in 1600 were bound to accept the 1600-year Tradition that they were trying to overturn, no? So these Jesuits were allowed to introduce novelties and overturn the universal consensus, but we Feeneyites must accept the modern universal consensus ... even though it's well established that the modern world has been thoroughly polluted with subjectivism since about the time of the Renaissance. It's one hypocrisy, lie, and contradiction after another by the Cushingites.
John, are men saved only in the Catholic religion?
Trad123-
this answers you as well..
St. Alphonsus did not unambiguously support the Thomistic thesis that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation is necessary for salvation. In his “Theologia Moralis,” Alphonsus asks which articles of faith must be explicitly believed for salvation and he considers four:
1. God exists.
2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
3. The Holy Trinity.
4. The Incarnation.
He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable.”
They are both probable, the first one being more likely, the second being "also quite probable".
2. Therefore, guided by the example of Our predecessors, We are grieved to hear reports from your dioceses which indicate that some of the people committed to your care freely encourage mixed marriages. Furthermore, they are promoting opinions contrary to the Catholic faith:
(. . .)
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.
10. 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.
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 of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.
Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] 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,”[17] 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.”
The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jews has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire).
indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.
St. Alphonsus said that the opinion is "also quite probable"... not " tolerated" as you lyingly stated...
You dont think that St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Pius X believe in EENS?
You are preposterous...and dishonest...
Congregation of Mary Immaculate QueenI think an implicit BOD, if it exists, would have to be more than just "following the natural law". Following the natural law, alone, would seem to merit Limbo only. You'd need to at least have supernatural faith of some kind. A deep seated willingness to do *Whatever* God commands for salvation, as well as a faith in whatever revelation he had about God, and perfect contrition for mortal sins.
http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml
Question 8.
WHAT THEN IS TO BE SAID OF ALL THOSE MAHOMETANS, JEWS, AND HEATHENS, WHO, NEVER HAVING HEARD OF JESUS CHRIST OR OF HIS RELIGION, ARE THEREFORE INVINCIBLY IGNORANT OF BOTH? CAN THEY BE SAVED, IF THEY LIVE AND DIE IN THAT STATE?
Answer.
The plain answer to this is that they cannot be saved; that not one of these “can enter into the kingdom of God.” It is true, as we have seen above, they will not be condemned precisely because they have not the faith of Christ, of which they are invincibly ignorant. But the faith of Christ, though an essential condition of salvation, is but one condition; others also are required.
And though invincible ignorance will certainly save a man from sin, in not knowing that of which he is invincibly ignorant, yet it is impossible to suppose that this invincible ignorance on one point will supply the want of all other conditions required.
Now, all those we here speak of are in the state of Original Sin, “aliens from God, and children of wrath,” being unBaptized; and it is an article of Christian Faith, that, unless Original Sin be washed away by the grace of Baptism, there is no salvation; for Christ Himself expressly declares, “Amen, amen, I say to thee, except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” [John 3: 5]. And, indeed, if even the children of Christian parents, who die without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven, how much less can those who, besides being unBaptized, live and die in ignorance of the true God, of Jesus Christ and His Faith, and, on that account, may be supposed to have also committed many actual sins.
Nay, to imagine that heathens, Mahometans, or Jews who live and die in that state can be saved, is to suppose that ignorance will save worshipers of idols, of Mahomet, and blasphemers of Jesus Christ, in the guilt of actual as well as Original Sin; which is putting them upon a better footing than Christians themselves and their children. The fate of all such the Scripture decides as follows: “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the Angel of His power, in a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His power,” [2 Thess. 1: 7]. This is precise, indeed–a clear and decisive answer to the present question.
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that commeth to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.
6. He that commeth. Faith is the foundation and ground of all other virtues, and worship of God, without which no man can please God. Therefore if one be a Jew, a heathen, or an heretic, that is to say, he be without the Catholic faith, all his works shall profit him no whit to salvation.
Outside this communion, as outside the Ark of Noah, there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church; not for heretics who, having received it, forsook or corrupted it; not for schismatics who left the peace and unity of the Church; and finally, neither for excommunicated persons who for any other serious cause deserved to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members. For the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: that man will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his Mother.
That you may have a true faith in those things which God has revealed, it is necessary that you should believe in the Catholic Church, in which alone you can learn with certainty what God has revealed. For this reason, after you have been asked if you believe in God, you are also asked if you believe in the Catholic Church.
Certainly those who do not believe in the Catholic Church cannot have divine faith in the mysteries which they believe, but only natural and human faith; a faith of their own fancy, founded on the light of their own judgment, subject to error, and not on the promises of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church alone possesses these promises, and on her testimony alone rests the foundation of Christian faith. As she possesses the divine promises for all days, even to the end of ages, there can be no reason to doubt whatever she proposes to our belief.
Thank God for having given you the precious gift of faith, and having made you a child of the holy Catholic Church, which is the faithful repository of the truths of salvation, and which all Christians are obliged to acknowledge as the true Church. In saying, “I believe in the holy Catholic Church’ you united yourself inseparably to this holy mother; you believe, without hesitation, all that she proposes, as proposed to you by Jesus Christ himself, who is ever with her in her instructions. Reject, then, with horror, everything at variance with her teachings, and regard it as an error calculated to endanger your faith.
However ignorant you may be, you have the true faith if you believe, without exception, all the holy Catholic Church believes and teaches; on the other hand, however learned you may be, you lose the gift and the virtue of faith if you reject any doctrine which she teaches; for her faith is your rule. “As there is but one faith,” says St. Paul, “to wish to divide it, is to destroy it.” Heretics not only differ from the Church in faith, but they also differ amongst themselves, a proof that they have not the true faith, which is one. The holy Catholic Church never has suffered, and never will suffer, a difference of faith in regard to any article. Her faith is the same in all times, in all places, and in all her true children. Thus her faith is one and the only true faith. You should be most desirous to preserve the faith in all its purity, since without it, it is impossible to do anything which merits Heaven. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Those who do not possess it may practice all the moral virtues, justice, sobriety, chastity, alms-deeds, prayers, mortification; and not only is this the case with heretics, but it is a truth which should be borne in mind, that these good actions, unless they have faith for their principle, will never merit Heaven for them. The law of Moses, all holy as it was, could save only those who observed it through faith.
When, therefore, you observe that those who believe not in the Church, practice some good works, offer many prayers, and lead an austere life, do not believe that they are on this account in the way of salvation, unless they have true faith; you commit an ENORMOUS SIN if you believe that they can be saved outside of the Church; that they can have faith without believing in her, or that they can be saved without faith.
Pope St. Pius XFalse, Pius X never said that.
. Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire...
TRAD123...Are you stating that Pope St.Pius X is teaching heresy here? How is he denying EENS? and if you think this is a heretical interpretation of "implicit", where is there a Church statement on the Church's definition of "implicit"?...
Besides, you believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Jews.... can be saved without baptism of blood, so why even discuss baptism of blood?LESSON: Do not ever waste your time discussing St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, or Baptism of blood with BODers before establishing whether they believe that a Mohamedan, Hindu, Jews..... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, implicit faith, which is not implicit baptism of desire but implicit faith in Jesus Christ by their belief in a God that rewards. By their true belief in salvation by implicit faith, they reject the very quotes they bring up by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, or Baptism of blood. They are liars, do not waste your time discussing anything but their belief in salvation by belief in a God that rewards. (Unless you like to your waste time.)
I, personally, would guess implicit BOD almost never happens, the odds are heavily against it happening EVER. Especially in the moral and spiritual condition the world is in !!Perfect contrition requires supernatural faith.
"Souls are falling to hell like snow"... "out of 100,00 souls who die, 3 might be saved".. and these are Catholics! Catholics !
But the Church TEACHES, that if that one person in a trillion, or a quadrillion, if you like, is in the state of Perfect contrition, loves God, and hates sin and has never committed a mortal sin in his entire life, that God knows this soul and definitely can, if He wants to, save that soul... without permission from you dunderheads..
I, personally, would guess implicit BOD almost never happens, the odds are heavily against it happening EVER. …..you dunderheads..Before you can call people stupid on this subject, you need learn what you are talking about, implicit faith is not implicit BOD.
Atheists can have implicit faith in a God that rewards, which amounts to implicit faith in the Christian God, which grants for implicit baptism of desire.I assume this is sarcasm? Because this is totally anti-catholic!
But this does not contradict EENS becauae the atheist is both within and without the Church simultaneously. It's a mystery of faith, don't force me to defend my mumbo-jumbo with facts and logic.
Oh and if you disagree then you're a heretic because a saint said a catechumen can be saved.
I assume this is sarcasm? Because this is totally anti-catholic!He's obviously being sarcastic lol
Is cuм Ex still in force? Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII both updated the conclave elections laws, added to that the 1917 revamping the code of canon law. The burden of proof is on you to prove that cuм Ex is still 100% in force.So are you saying that if this crisis took place in 1916.you would hold the sedevacantist position ? You never responded to the following from months ago
Can you explain what you mean?[color][size][font]
Trad123-
this answers you as well..
St. Alphonsus did not unambiguously support the Thomistic thesis that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation is necessary for salvation. In his “Theologia Moralis,” Alphonsus asks which articles of faith must be explicitly believed for salvation and he considers four:
1. God exists.
2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
3. The Holy Trinity.
4. The Incarnation.
He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable.”
They are both probable, the first one being more likely, the second being "also quite probable".
John,
To put in perspective the importance of the doctrinal fight of Father Feeney, consider this: name a single Sedevacantist priest (Sanborn, Cekada, Jenkins, etc.) who holds the "common and more probable opinion" (St. Alphonsus) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation.
Shoot, to put it more glaringly in perspective, name a single cleric - Sede, SSPX, Novus Ordo - who does so.
Fr. Hesse's ordination is doubtful...he was ordained in the new rite. If he's valid, then so is every novus ordo "presbyter"...
In other words, "Fr." Hesse was merely qualified to preside over assemblies of the "people of God"... with no priestly powers.
Bishop George Hay. No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church (pp. 22-23)
Atheists can have implicit faith in a God that rewards, which amounts to implicit faith in the Christian God, which grants for implicit baptism of desire.
But this does not contradict EENS becauae the atheist is both within and without the Church simultaneously. It's a mystery of faith, don't force me to defend my mumbo-jumbo with facts and logic.
Oh and if you disagree then you're a heretic because a saint said a catechumen can be saved.
Leaving aside the argument of John's bad will, I'm still curious about the original video.
I mean explicit BOD and implicit BOD are different issues, and I get that most Feeneyites don't mind explicit BOD very much, but it still seems relevant whether or not that's error.
After 8 pages of your red herring arguments, the fact remains that you self appointed anti-popes DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE in the Church teaching of EXPLICIT Baptism of desire..
Notice I did not ask your opinion but only WHERE can I find the Church's own definition of implicit...
There are also different levels of "implicit".I think most trads stop at 2. Most “feeneyites” wouldn’t object much if we stopped at 1, though they’d object very strongly to 2. Most novus ordo seem to go for 3, but 3 is probably pelagianism.
Explicit: I want to become a Catholic and want to be baptized.
Implicit 1: I want to become a Catholic (implicit want to be baptized).
Implicit 2: I want to do God's will (implicit want to become a Catholic, since it's what God wills, and implicit want to be baptized, since it's what God wills).
Implicit 3: I'm a nice guy doing the best I can (implicit want to do God's will ... the rest as in Implicit 2).
Most people believe in Implicit 3 today.
As seen by how it could lead to #3, this notion of "implicit" is one of the most dangerous in all of Catholic theology, being exploited to no end by enemies of the faith to undermine Catholic dogma.
Implicit 2 lines up with Rewarder God theory and didn't exist before that was invented by a couple of Jesuits around 1600.
Implicit 1 (and Explicit of course) requires explicit faith in the core Catholic dogmas.
Implicit 3 opens things up even to atheists, or even to, hypothetically, those who believe that God rewards the wicked and punishes the just ... like the Aztecs and worshippers of Baal or even Satanists.
Traditional Catholics for 500 years have been taught, via Catechisms endorsed by the Church, that explicit Desire for baptism suffices for water baptism in adults, justifying them with sanctifying grace, meaning that if they died in that state they will have saved their souls...
Deny that..
Nevermind the fact that the council of Trent TEACHES EXPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE, also, the catechism of the council of Trent, ...
I think most trads stop at 2. Most “feeneyites” wouldn’t object much if we stopped at 1, though they’d object very strongly to 2. Most novus ordo seem to go for 3, but 3 is probably pelagianism.
Would you say that’s a basically correct analysis on the situation itself, leaving aside for the moment who is right?
Traditional Catholics for 500 years have been taught, via Catechisms endorsed by the Church, that explicit Desire for baptism suffices for water baptism in adults, justifying them with sanctifying grace, meaning that if they died in that state they will have saved their souls...
Deny that..
I completely agree with your assessment. When I said that most believe in #3, I'm including the Novus Ordites, who nearly universally believe in #3.I think most of my friends who converted through the novus ordo from Protestantism also stop at 2. Which probably comes with the fact that they actually learned the faith, albeit perhaps watered down by Vatican ii and such. But then, these are hermeneutics of continuity types, not “everything changes and that’s good” type.
Most Trads do in fact stop at 2.
Most, if not all true "Feeneyites", would indeed not object to #1, but would object to #2.
There are also different levels of "implicit".I never even thought of Implicit 3, which is no surprise to me since I don't study error, but you are right, these fake BODers like John do fall into #3.
Explicit: I want to become a Catholic and want to be baptized.
Implicit 1: I want to become a Catholic (implicit want to be baptized).
Implicit 2: I want to do God's will (implicit want to become a Catholic, since it's what God wills, and implicit want to be baptized, since it's what God wills).
Implicit 3: I'm a nice guy doing the best I can (implicit want to do God's will ... the rest as in Implicit 2).
Most people believe in Implicit 3 today.
As seen by how it could lead to #3, this notion of "implicit" is one of the most dangerous in all of Catholic theology, being exploited to no end by enemies of the faith to undermine Catholic dogma.
Implicit 2 lines up with Rewarder God theory and didn't exist before that was invented by a couple of Jesuits around 1600.
Implicit 1 (and Explicit of course) requires explicit faith in the core Catholic dogmas.
Implicit 3 opens things up even to atheists, or even to, hypothetically, those who believe that God rewards the wicked and punishes the just ... like the Aztecs and worshippers of Baal or even Satanists.
And I am convinced that if a person is truly a sincere #2 that God will bring him to the true faith."For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham". (Mat 3:9)
And I am convinced that if a person is truly a sincere #2 that God will bring him to the true faith.I struggle to believe there were zero of them in America before Columbus. Maybe god did a miracle but idk
I struggle to believe there were zero of them in America before Columbus. Maybe god did a miracle but idk
I struggle to believe there were zero of them in America before Columbus. Maybe god did a miracle but idkScarcely anyone is saved today. It is not hard to see that God put those Indians there in his mercy, for had they been born in Europe they would have ended in the deepest pits of hell, which is reserved for Catholics.
Scarcely anyone is saved today. It is not hard to see that God put those Indians there in his mercy, for had they been born in Europe they would have ended in the deepest pits of hell, which is reserved for Catholics.99.96% of Catholics are damned? And only twice as many went to purgatory as straight to Heaven? And it also folloes that Etreme Unction is pointless, since surely at least a few thousand of the souls that died that day would've received it(any souls who died of old age, illness, or who took hours to succuмb to their wounds) and were still damned regardless.
A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell. (St. Anthony Mary Claret - It has been revealed that on the day of the death of St. Bernard there also died 79,997 other people, and of this total of 80,000 who died, only St. Bernard and two other monks were saved.)
99.96% of Catholics are damned? And only twice as many went to purgatory as straight to Heaven? And it also folloes that Etreme Unction is pointless, since surely at least a few thousand of the souls that died that day would've received it(any souls who died of old age, illness, or who took hours to succuмb to their wounds) and were still damned regardless.To be honest so do I. I’m curious if the person who posted it has any struggles with despair
I always found that revelation hard to believe.
To be honest so do I. I’m curious if the person who posted it has any struggles with despairThe person that posted it is irrelevant, the important one is the writer, St. Anthony Mary Claret.
99.96% of Catholics are damned? And only twice as many went to purgatory as straight to Heaven? And it also folloes that Etreme Unction is pointless, since surely at least a few thousand of the souls that died that day would've received it(any souls who died of old age, illness, or who took hours to succuмb to their wounds) and were still damned regardless.That was one day. It may have been better the next day, but I doubt today it would be better than 95% were lost. To me it only shows that salvation is no piece of cake.
I always found that revelation hard to believe.
That was one day. It may have been better the next day, but I doubt today it would be better than 95% were lost. To me it only shows that salvation is no piece of cake.That I definitely agree with
The person that posted it is irrelevant, the important one is the writer, St. Anthony Mary Claret.It seems like a bit of a category error for me. I’m Catholic. If feeneyism is true, that doesn’t really negatively impact my likelihood of salvation.
By the way, if I were tortured by being placed into a 55 gallon drum of excrement for days, as happened to some close friends I have known, I would not despair. The last person that would despair about anything is I, by God's Grace.
It is curious that you mention despair, for I believe it is at the heart of the disbelief in EENS as it is written. The believers in salvation by belief in a God that rewards get scared and despair at the thought of EENS as it is written.
If feeneyism is true, that doesn’t really negatively impact my likelihood of salvation.Be advised that the using the expression of "Feeneyism" for the belief in EENS as it is written, only serves to reveal an ignorance of history on the part of the user.
Be advised that the using the expression of "Feeneyism" for the belief in EENS as it is written, only serves to reveal an ignorance of history on the part of the user.LT,
Fr Hesse briefly discusses the SV position and rules it out. Fr Hesse says that SVs like to rely on the Apostolic Bull of Pope Paul IV cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio which says that a heretic cannot become Pope. He explains that the election of the Supreme Pontiff is a canonical election, which is an act of administration and is therefore not infallible. Papal election is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure, therefore there cannot be an infallible pronouncement on it. He states that the Bull is infallible as far as doctrinal statements are concerned, but it cannot be infallible as far as administrative rules are concerned. These rules have been changed by subsequent Popes a couple of dozen times in Church History.Election is canonical election
He talks about this from 10:54 till about 14:06 here (https://youtu.be/bRsiS9h-PG8?t=654)
Election is canonical electionIf you listened to the whole video it may have helped better explain why he came to his conclusions, but anyway, what it all amounts to is the man elected, good or bad, is the pope. If he is a heretic there is nothing anyone can do about it - the next pope or a future pope is the only one who can do anything about it - after the heretic is long gone. The pope makes the conclave rules, which is to say that per those rules, and whatever they may be, that is the only way a pope will ever be elected.
I agree with Fr Hessy that rules of administration can be changed
He say it’s an infallible doc but not as admin , so if the rules change in that cardinals don’t elect the pope etc..I get that but I don’t see how the election of a heretic pertains to anything administrative, and if what he states is correct, that subsequent popes have changed
He says the sedes make a neurotic statement because it’s a dead end ?” Who’s going to elect the next pope “
This I disagree with, that sedes are somehow neurotic, I think we can all agree the election of the next true pope can only be done with God’s intervention , sede or not….no? Tell me how the situation is better if everyone held the the SSPX view that Jewgorglio is a true pope , how will this affect the mess we are in for the better?
If you listened to the whole video it may have helped better explain why he came to his conclusions, but anyway, what it all amounts to is the man elected, good or bad, is the pope. If he is a heretic there is nothing anyone can do about it - the next pope or a future pope is the only one who can do anything about it - after the heretic is long gone. The pope makes the conclave rules, which is to say that per those rules, and whatever they may be, that is the only way a pope will ever be elected.One has nothing to do with the other, I am a sede yet I still agree with him we are under obedience to God. I just refuse to believe your pope Jewgorglio is my pope and pope of the Church of Christ.
The SSPX et al belief that the pope is the pope has no bearing on our religious obligations - if you would have heard the very beginning of the video, you would have heard the Highest Principle of the Church: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man."
John Salza, Second Article, p. 5: “Ability to Recognize a Formal Heretic: Catholics are able to recognize a formal heretic without a declaration from the Church. See canon 188.4 and cuм Ex Apostolatus.
John Salza, Second Article, pp. 15-16: “While a Catholic may claim that some of the conduct of the conciliar popes raises questions about their fidelity to Church dogmas (e.g., “No Salvation Outside the Church”), these Popes have never declared that they deny the dogmas in question. If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ, and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary (although it would most likely still be given), and canon 188.4 and cuм Ex would apply.”
One has nothing to do with the other, I am a sede yet I still agree with him we are under obedience to God. I just refuse to believe your pope Jewgorglio is my pope and pope of the Church of Christ.To answer your question, for me (and I suspect for most trads), I don't use the canon law definition of heretic, rather, I just go by what the pope says and does - if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy. It doesn't matter who says it or when. Sedes say popes cannot teach heresy, but if he does, he is not pope. To me, this very idea is such a blatant contradiction in and of itself that I used to disbelieve anyone would buy it - but I was wrong.
question to Pax was never responded to whether if the crisis were to have occurred before 1917 if you would then hold the sede position. What are your comments on the following
LT,Within 150 years would be 1869, but how do we define main assault? We are in the USA and all of the docuмentation we have is in English, so nobody here considers anything but English language docuмents. I am of Spanish ancestry, living in the USA. In Spanish speaking countries we knew nothing else but that Protestants all go to hell and you can forget about every other "religion". So, you are correct for the USA, but in Spain and South America it is only a recent thing.
Do you think the main assault on EENS came about within the last 150 years?
My impression is that it gained critical mass around the time of Pope Leo XIII.
Now, the majority of false BODers, Cushingites, first of all just can't believe that a "good" person in some other religion will end up in hell, so from there they just seek teachers according to their own desires. It is not that they first learn that people in other religions can be saved, it is first that they can't believe that those people are lost. Fr. Cekada says exactly that.The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Notice I did not ask your opinion but only WHERE can I find the Church's own definition of implicit...John,
Luke18:8
I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
Dico vobis quia cito faciet vindictam illorum. Verumtamen Filius hominis veniens, putas, inveniet fidem in terra?
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
As for sedeism, for me it starts and ends with the dogma that it is necessary to be subject to the pope or no salvation for me. Because it is dogma, this is foundational for me, there is no possible way around this for me, nor is there any possible way for me to get out of this because it is a requirement for salvation, it is dogma that I remain a subject of the pope.
#1 ... you're begging the question that this man is in fact the pope.#1 ... no, I am not the one begging the question.
#2 ... you are in no way "subject" to him, as mere lip service does not count. You reject pretty much everything he teaches, commands, and stands for. Putting his picture up in a chapel vestibule does not count as subjection.