Author Topic: SSPX and Bergolio Teach Same Salvation for Anyone (Read 6606 times)

bowler · « **on:** November 29, 2013, 09:55:34 AM »

From another thread a good point was raised:

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: poche
Quote from: 2Vermont
Bergolio: "Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,[199] and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”

What is the difference between this and the baptism of desire?

Depends on how you define "Baptism of Desire". If you define it the way Church Doctors like St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus did, then there's a huge difference between Bergoglio's statement and BoD.

And at the very least Francis doesn't seem to be speaking in rare exceptions. He seems to be speaking as if this happens on a fairly regular basis. I mean, aren't most people in general "faithful to their own consciences"? And wouldn't it also be true that most people's consciences are pretty poorly formed?

This is something the SSPX complains about the conciliar church, that "they seem to be speaking as if this happens on a fairly regular basis".
However, that observation is ridiculous since once you open the door to such a belief, as the SSPX has done, there are no limits, you can't just limit it to say it is rare. How do they know that it's rare? It's the same as Bill Clinton saying that he tried marijuana, but he didn't inhale it. Ridiculouis!

There is no absolutely no difference between what Pope Francis said and what Bishop Fellay (and the SSPX seminaries teach):

Quote

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Pelele · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2013, 12:13:33 PM »

What's your point with this?

You're not saying anything new.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2013, 02:08:01 PM »

Bowler, I am so not getting into this with you because I know where it leads: nowhere good. So I'll write one post on the matter and that is it.

The sacraments were made for men, not for God; therefore God can choose to save someone outside of His sacraments. Of course, we don't know who or when that will happen. It isn't for us to know. That is why we should do our best, given our individual circuмstances, to teach the Faith to others...to teach the necessity of baptism so that others will do so. The main problem today is that there doesn't seem to be a need to teach the necessity of baptism because way too many folks seem to think that God makes this choice more often than not. It is the result of the focus on the Mercy of God and the lack of focus on the Justice of God.

bowler · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2013, 02:38:55 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

The sacraments were made for men, not for God; therefore God can choose to save someone outside of His sacraments.

Yeah, that solves everything for those that choose to ignore the unanimous opinion of the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written. Funny that Our Lord Jesus Christ never mentioned any such thing. Neither did the Holy Ghost in His infallible pronouncements:

Quote from: bowler

All the infallible decrees on the sacrament of baptism fit together perfectly, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. In all honesty even BODers must admit that if the Holy Ghost had any intention of defining an excuse like BOD at Trent, he does it in most obscure language. On the other hand, the meaning of Trent and tradition (the unanimous opinion of the Fathers) is clear and intelligible if we do not try to force a reference to "BOD" in between the lines.

John 3:5 Is to be Understood Literally, as it is Written

The Fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. So as not to clog this posting with all of the quotes of Early Church Fathers who believed in John 3:5 as it is written, I quote:

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

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, 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 (John 3:5).

Chapter VII.

What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

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 everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema

bowler · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2013, 03:02:39 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Bowler, I am so not getting into this with you because I know where it leads: nowhere good.

It's really very simple, if the Fathers unanimous opinion that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written, and ALL those infallible decrees on the sacrament of baptism, if they do not mean what they clearly say, and can be dismissed, then practically ALL that the Church teaches can be dismissed. Since practically nothing else is infallible written any clearer.

The errors of ecuмenism, collegiality, the New Mass, WHATEVER, they are as nothing compared to dismissing all these clear infallible teachings and conclude that "God can save anyone outside of the sacraments" (and outside of the Church, for there is no difference).

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2013, 03:17:02 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

What's your point with this?

You're not saying anything new.

I'm not saying anything new, that Bp. Fellay and the SSPX are liberals just like Pope Francis when it comes to EENS?

I bet that 99% of SSPXers would call Bergolio a heretic for saying what he said. And yet when you point out to them that Bp. Fellay says the same, they would say, " well, that's different, he is saying that...."

Jehanne · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2013, 04:11:35 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “ Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

This is a very queer statement, coming from someone who claims to be following Saint Thomas:

Quote

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)

Pelele · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2013, 05:55:03 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Pelele
What's your point with this?

You're not saying anything new.

I'm not saying anything new, that Bp. Fellay and the SSPX are liberals just like Pope Francis when it comes to EENS?

I bet that 99% of SSPXers would call Bergolio a heretic for saying what he said. And yet when you point out to them that Bp. Fellay says the same, they would say, " well, that's different, he is saying that...."

Oh, so now they're LIBERALS, not heretics...

You said it yourself: how come Jorge can be a heretic for this but not the sspx?

Put 2+2 together eh?

Why don't you just say what you really think about this? Do you think Lefebvre was a salvation heretic yes or no? Or because it's him, you will just say he was a "liberal"?

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2013, 05:59:58 PM »

There is a HUGE difference between what Francis-Bergolio said and what Bishop Fellay said:

Quote

Francis-Bergolio: live according to your conscience.

Fellay: live according to your conscience AND the natural law.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:02:21 PM »

bowler is correct:

Bergoglio = Fellay = Lefebvre = SSPX = Vatican II = Sanborn = Kelly = 90% of all Traditional Catholics

on this issue. But this issue is in fact the CORE of the Vatican II errors.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:04:20 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

There is a HUGE difference between what Francis-Bergolio said and what Bishop Fellay said:

Quote
Francis-Bergolio: live according to your conscience.

Fellay: live according to your conscience AND the natural law.

No, there's ZERO difference between the two.

Frances · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:15:15 PM »

:dancing-banana:How many Hindu men live PERFECTLY according to Natural Law with their consciences in 100% agreement with it? If there exists such a Hindu, then, yes, he might be be saved, but only if he were also invincably ignorant of the claims of the Catholic Church. Which is why I do not "belong" to the SSPX, but to the Catholic Church of Tradition.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:25:07 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:How many Hindu men live PERFECTLY according to Natural Law with their consciences in 100% agreement with it?

Even if they DID, they CANNOT be saved. That's sheer Pelagianism. I find it ironic how Francis keeps calling Traditional Catholics Pelagians. It's as if he doesn't even know what the term means.

No amount of NATURAL goodness can result in salvation. Period.

Without SUPERNATURAL faith and charity, no one at all can be saved. Without Jesus Christ and faith in Jesus Christ, the true faith in Jesus Christ, i.e. the Catholic faith, no one at all can be saved. That's defined dogma.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:27:46 PM »

And I say this sincerely now. If someone could convince me that Bishop Fellay holds the true Catholic position on EENS, I would immediately have to accept Vatican II and renounce my Traditionalist schism, for EVERY ERROR in Vatican II, the new "subsistit" ecclesiology, subjectivist religious liberty, ecuмenism -- they ALL make perfect sense as natural logical conclusions if you have Fellay's and most Traditionalists' view of EENS.

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:31:09 PM »

The SSPX does not hold and teach the same teaching as Francis on EENS.