Xaviersem wrote : To your question, what I agree with is the below declaration by Bp. Athanasius and Cardinal Burke, which the SSPX has endorsed, : "“After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind” (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)."
Last Tradhican asked: ....People's opinions are not so important to me. What is important is to pinpoint the big picture of what they believe. All I want to know is what you believe.In order to pinpoint what he believes I gave him clear examples of the theory of implicit faith and asked him if he rejects them. That's simple enough to answer.
Xaviersem wrote: To your question, what I agree with is the below declaration by Bp. Athanasius and Cardinal Burke, which the SSPX has endorsed, and which I've promoted many times, including on CI: "“After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without at least Implicit faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind” (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)."
(2) St. Padre Pio - whom even the Dimonds consider one of the Greatest Saints ever - taught Julius Fine was saved by Baptism of Desire
There are many other examples, and even one counter-example is sufficient to disprove a universal negative: "no soul is saved by Baptism of Desire" is disproved by a single counter-example. (3) St. Cyprian said those who came to the Church without Baptism would be saved, because the Lord would give them the Grace for it; (4) St. Ambrose said Valentian was saved, and prayed for him, showing Valentian was saved by BOD, not BOB, nor Water Baptism; (5) Pope Innocent III said a Priest who was invalidly Baptized was saved. The Pope then endorsed the opinions of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose on BOD, and commanded prayers and sacrifices for his soul.
[one saved by BOD] would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith
Florence Fine Herman in 1965 asked Padre Pio to pray for her father who had terminal ALS. He promised to take him under his protection. He was a devout Jew. Two years later he died. She was told by friends that without baptism one cannot be saved. She went back to Padre Pio with a heavy heart. She took the courage to ask: “Where is my father?” Padre Pio replied: “Julius Fine is saved. But we need to pray a lot for him.”
Last Tradhican asks for third time:Reams of material posted by Xaviersem, but no reply to my simple question above. We have no confirmation of what Xaviersem believes, it appears that he is an implicit faith'er and agrees with the examples I gave. Till he responds clearly, to me he remains a sophist a fɾαυd.
I didn’t ask you what you agree with, I asked you : all I need to know is just if you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith below , very simple, yes or no?
Do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards?:
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
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.)
Below, Fr. Mueller, in a Catechism approved by Rome, teaches the doctrine verified in the case of Mrs. Rosalie Cohen.What Fr. Muller describes above is "Explicit" Baptism of Desire and not "implicit"
Notice also that precisely those same two doctrines St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc say were confessed.
The Holy Trinity and the Incarnation explicitly: the woman said, "O Jesus God of the Christians ... I believe in You!"
From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm
"Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?A. No.Q. Why not?A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.Q. What do you mean by this?A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?A. Eternal damnation.
You stand on the word of two misguided monks, who think they've discovered a new "heresy" in Trent. Blind guides of the blind.
Next, you missed this from Pope Innocent III: "Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Apostolicam Sedem).”
Why prayers and sacrifices? Because the person received justification through BOD, but needed prayers to be saved. You didn't answer many of my questions on the other thread regarding this.
You can't or don't or won't debate decently, without resorting to absurd ad hominem. I did not lie.
All the copy and paste material from Xaviersem has been answered years ago ad-nauseum, it is old material. Been there seen that (10+ years on CI) and answered it more than enough times. Today, I only look at the big picture, what does the person believe? I have spelled out what I believe, and I do not care if someone else wants to believe otherwise, at least after I have explained my position simply. Why do people like XavierSem and Lover of Truth (his predecessor, who wrote 10x what Xaviersem has and was totally refuted in every detail) feel obligated to create hundreds of threads about the ways that non-Catholics can be saved? After many years at this I have concluded that they feel rebuked in their real belief that anyone can be saved by God in the last seconds when He appears to them. I have never seen a strict Thomist post about his harmless belief that a catechumen can be saved by BOD. It is always the false BODers, fake Thomists, that start and proliferate these never ending threads.
Below, Fr. Mueller, in a Catechism approved by Rome, teaches the doctrine verified in the case of Mrs. Rosalie Cohen.Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?A. No.Q. Why not?A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.Q. What do you mean by this?A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Xavier, your last post was a terrible patchwork of lies and distortions. You show yourself to be completely dishonest. I'll try to pick it apart as I have time.Why bother? Just have him reveal his real belief. He is a fɾαυd pretending to limit his belief to the harmless BOD of the catechumen when his real belief is the same as Lover of Truth and all the others like them. He simply believes that at death when God appears to the infidel in person and shows them the truth, that they will convert and be saved without the sacrament of baptism. So, much for faith and an invisible God! He won't even answer my simple question, how does anyone expect him to answer anything clearly? I do not think he reads anything of what anyone writes before copy and pasting more old material.
Translation to the truth:
I confess those who die as infidels are lost. I believe those who die with the Catholic Faith, having received Baptism of Desire or of Perfect Contrition, will be saved.
I XavierSem confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
Tallin Trad asked: Now that the Catholic Church has wrecked itself and 99% blindly follow Francis the destroyer, there is not much salvation inside it either.Good Samaritan did not need to be baptized, he died before the new covenant and did not go to heaven. He went to paradise to be with all the just from Adam and Eve on up, who also were saved to paradise without baptism. At the Ascension, Our Lord opened the gates of Heaven and all the souls in paradise were finally able to enter.
I'd say I am reasonably sure, 90% that both the sincere and virtuous Tibetan monk and the modern contracepted Catholic Democrat mother and father of two children are BOTH damned.
The second most likely option 10% is that the monk is saved and the modern Catholic Bıdɛn supporting parents are damned. The monk has at least been as virtuous as he could be.
I would assume the Good Samaritan went to heaven otherwise what was the point of the story? I know he was fictional but such people exist in real life. I don't see how in justice a Samaritan who did not know Christ is saved but a Tibetan monk is not.
You also lie in claiming that St. John Vianney "taught" anything.
Allegedly he simply told someone Fr. that he would receive a letter that would console him.
Allegedly this letter was written by some unknown alleged mystic.
Nowhere did St. John Vianney endorse its contents, if it even existed, but merely said that Fr. would be "consoled" by it ... which he was (allegedly).
This proves something?
As with any popular saint, thousands of apocryphal sayings are alleged of them, most of which are completely made up. There are many such attributed to Padre Pio that have been debunked as false.
In most of these Saintly BOD/BOB anecdotal stories, it seems some critical details are left out ?Yes, something is off here. Father would have specifically asked God for his mother to be baptized.
The stories are presented to make the BOD/BOB points but, there always seems to be unanswered questions surrounding the events.
Rosalie Cohen received the miraculous grace of the Faith.
She acknowledges Our Lord, then kneels down at His feet and dies.
But if she did receive the grace of the Faith, it would seem her first emotions should be sorrow for her sins and an immєdιαte desire for Baptism?
Not just, “Oh, I get it now!”
In fact, if we are to believe this story, Rosalie needed to make that her dying words... “Baptism Oh Lord!”
Selfish interjection here: While we're on the topic, can you all say a prayer for my mother's conversion, that she ask for baptism (probably from me) before her death? Although she's still doing okay, she is 88 years old now.:pray:
In most of these Saintly BOD/BOB anecdotal stories, it seems some critical details are left out ?Yes, it would seem that entrance into The Church is conveniently missing from these stories.
The stories are presented to make the BOD/BOB points but, there always seems to be unanswered questions surrounding the events.
Rosalie Cohen received the miraculous grace of the Faith.
She acknowledges Our Lord, then kneels down at His feet and dies.
But if she did receive the grace of the Faith, it would seem her first emotions should be sorrow for her sins and an immєdιαte desire for Baptism?
Not just, “Oh, I get it now!”
In fact, if we are to believe this story, Rosalie needed to make that her dying words... “Baptism Oh Lord!”
Selfish interjection here: While we're on the topic, can you all say a prayer for my mother's conversion, that she ask for baptism (probably from me) before her death? Although she's still doing okay, she is 88 years old now.Absolutely! :pray:
Selfish interjection here: While we're on the topic, can you all say a prayer for my mother's conversion, that she ask for baptism (probably from me) before her death? Although she's still doing okay, she is 88 years old now.
I believe I've been disabled from making posts, so I'm gonna hijack this thread too (admittedly for a far less important purpose than 2Vermont's) to ask a question: who are some saints who can help you get out of despondency?It turns out that General Discussion was just closed, and I can make a new topic elsewhere- my mistake! I'll still leave this question here though.
St. Jean Vianney and Padre Pio both being mentioned in this thread reminded me of this, since they're both priests who were joyful and light, as well as profoundly lovable men who gave simple advice and who have helped millions. Plus, I figure it's more pleasant than another BoD thread where certain pro-BoDers passive aggressively attack everyone else. :P
God Bless you all! And 2Vermont, your mother will be in my prayers too!
Last Tradhican asks for third time:
I didn’t ask you what you agree with, I asked you : all I need to know is just if you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith below , very simple, yes or no?
Do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards?:
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
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 yetIt would be good if Xavier ould simply answer the question posed by 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.)
I believe I've been disabled from making posts, so I'm gonna hijack this thread too (admittedly for a far less important purpose than 2Vermont's) to ask a question: who are some saints who can help you get out of despondency?St. Ephraem
St. Jean Vianney and Padre Pio both being mentioned in this thread reminded me of this, since they're both priests who were joyful and light, as well as profoundly lovable men who gave simple advice and who have helped millions. Plus, I figure it's more pleasant than another BoD thread where certain pro-BoDers passive aggressively attack everyone else. :P
God Bless you all! And 2Vermont, your mother will be in my prayers too!
It would be good if Xaviersem would simply answer the questions posed above. There is no shame is saying what you believe.
It would be good if Xaviersem would simply answer the questions posed above. There is no shame is saying what you believe.
Ladislaus...
I would actually gain a modicuм of respect for him were he to say that he disagrees with +Lefebvre and +Fellay on this point...
Selfish interjection here: While we're on the topic, can you all say a prayer for my mother's conversion, that she ask for baptism (probably from me) before her death? Although she's still doing okay, she is 88 years old now.
I believe I've been disabled from making posts, so I'm gonna hijack this thread too (admittedly for a far less important purpose than 2Vermont's) to ask a question: who are some saints who can help you get out of despondency?
St. Jean Vianney and Padre Pio both being mentioned in this thread reminded me of this, since they're both priests who were joyful and light, as well as profoundly lovable men who gave simple advice and who have helped millions. Plus, I figure it's more pleasant than another BoD thread where certain pro-BoDers passive aggressively attack everyone else. :P
God Bless you all! And 2Vermont, your mother will be in my prayers too!
Prayers for your Mother, 2Vermont. :pray: May God give her the Grace to come to Christ and His Church and be saved. Amen.
Dear Donkath, I must have answered Last Tradhican's question on what I believe like 10 times, including on this thread, but he doesn't want to hear it. I don't believe anyone will be saved without conversion, without at least explicit faith in Jesus Christ and perfect contrition. I gave Last Trad a source from Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, which the SSPX endorsed, that said no one is saved without faith in Christ as true God and Savior. Last Trad absurdly implied this didn't mean what it said. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been arguing against salvation by implicit faith for a long time, and I agree with H.E.
I've been trying to search for what exactly Bishop Fellay believes, and am not sure H.E. believes the Hindu in question would be saved without conversion. Since H.E. is still alive, someone can contact and ask: This is what H.E. said recently, "Once again, the Holy See’s response was to say: “That is not from the Magisterium.” And quite recently you have a docuмent published by Cardinal Koch on relations with the Jҽωs (Docuмent of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jҽωs, December 10, 2015). It is a terrible docuмent, completely heretical, which claims that the Jҽωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jҽωs: “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.”
But then what game are they playing? They teach without teaching. This causes confusion everywhere. It is a new attitude. Until now it was clear to every Catholic that when Rome speaks: Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Rome speaks, Rome teaches, and that’s the end of the discussion. And here they are telling us that, no, “it is intended to be a starting point for further theological thought.” https://sspx.org/en/can-pastoral-council-be-debatable
Dear Donkath, I must have answered Last Tradhican's question on what I believe like 10 times,