The "rat poison" is on your side, in your Dimondite denial of what Church Doctors call de fide dogmas. You end by committing mortal sin against the Faith and even objective heresy (denial of what is de fide is heresy) and leading people outside the Church, where there is no salvation. This is all that heretical Dimondite rigorism ever accomplishes. Not surprising from those who are open "Ecclesia-Vacantists", who hold that the entire Catholic and Apostolic Church has defected to heresy like the Dimonds do.
These are your great lights. You will end up like them. Blind guides of the blind. My guides are the Popes and Doctors and Saints. One positive thing is you have not yet gone so far as Ibranyi in condemning them, although that's where Dimondism leads. But if you don't condemn them, you can't consistently condemn us who hold precisely to their teaching. Of course you are inconsistent as well, LT.
Ladislaus, did you read what I said: "If Bishop Fellay did endorse salvation by implicit faith - and I'm not convinced he did based on what I quoted about what H.E. said on the Jҽωs - then I don't agree with H.E. on that point. If I could converse with His Excellency, I would respectfully point to St. Alphonsus' teaching. My view is Bishop Fellay would almost certainly agree with St. Alphonsus Liguori, if he doesn't already do so, when respectfully presented.
I quoted numerous Popes, Saints, Doctors, Catechisms, Councils, Manuals and Theologians that teach exactly what I believe".
I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith. I agree with the Church Doctors who taught salvation by explicit faith.
But I'm not convinced Bishop Fellay taught salvation by implicit faith. If someone believes H.E. did, why not email H.E. and ask him?t
Topic: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question? (Read 3958 times)