Quote from: Disputaciones

If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.

You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Disputaciones

If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.

You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".

Well, you're actually right about that, it's not heretical.

But, it's still an error and a mortal sin to believe in it and it will send you to Hell.

the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Disputaciones

If you must know, i believe all that was taught up till 1958. I was delivered of the Feeneyite heresy ...."Hey, my opinion is worthless and i have no business pontificating on theological matters, much less condemn those who don't agree with my own (condemned) private interpretation of the Magisterium.

You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".

Well, you're actually right about that, it's not heretical.

But, it's still an error and a mortal sin to believe in it and it will send you to Hell.

You are again pontificating and condemning.  The strict EENS of St. Francis Xavier that I quoted is not anomaly in Church teaching and  I could quote many other saints and doctors teaching the same, and not a one has been "condemned to hell" by the Church.

You have to accept the fact of what I said before:

Quote

the Church teaches the strict-EENS of say St. Francis Xavier and Holy Office under Pope Pius X, and it also allows the teaching of the salvation of anyone of Vatican II.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Last Tradhican

You contradict yourself by calling people who disagree with you, heretics and condemning them. And by not accepting teachings on EENS after 1958, you are also " pontificating on theological matters".

No, because the Vatican 2 church and its hierarchy have directly preached, taught and done what the Church has always condemned. They go far beyond into direct heresy: they preach that one religion is as good as another and that you do not need to convert at all to be saved; they directly call the false religions themselves more or less good and praiseworthy and capable of saving people. They tell people who actually want to convert, NOT to convert. The Church has always condemned such heresies.

In fact, they contradict what even Vatican 2 taught. Vatican 2 said those who actually know about the Church and refuse submission will be condemned.
 

To discuss VatII teachings on EENS on this thread would be a distraction. If you want, start a thread on it in the Crisis section and we can discuss it there. Suffice it to say that you'd have to prove to me where Vatican II taught anything that is not taught by the sources that you follow in your belief that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. Fr. Fenton did not condemn Vatican II.

Well, it's difficult to have a serious theological discussion with Justin Bieber LOL.  (You can thank Matthew for that one.)

To the point, however, it's the Cushingites who always conflate the issue of BoD with the broader question of ecclesiology with which most "Feeneyites" are actually concerned.  In fact, very few of us are all that concerned about the traditional/classic view of BoD.  We have little or no concern with someone like Nishant or Matto here on CI who hold to that view, and we wouldn't waste 30 seconds of our time arguing with them.

So let's get back to the crux of the matter.  Do you believe that it's a tenable Catholic opinion to state that those who do not profess the Catholic faith (including at least minimally explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved and therefore be within the Church?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Well, it's difficult to have a serious theological discussion with Justin Bieber LOL.  (You can thank Matthew for that one.)

To the point, however, it's the Cushingites who always conflate the issue of BoD with the broader question of ecclesiology with which most "Feeneyites" are actually concerned.  In fact, very few of us are all that concerned about the traditional/classic view of BoD.  We have little or no concern with someone like Nishant or Matto here on CI who hold to that view, and we wouldn't waste 30 seconds of our time arguing with them.

So let's get back to the crux of the matter.  Do you believe that it's a tenable Catholic opinion to state that those who do not profess the Catholic faith (including at least minimally explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved and therefore be within the Church?

That is not the subject. Please see my last several posts on this thread. thanks.

St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished[/u] in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into
which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Actually, that is the ONLY subject that should occupy space on any CI thread about EENS. All else is a waste of time and beating around the bush.

Yes, the Cushingites ALWAYS deflect the discussion to BoD because they can find support for it in St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus.  They then try to imply that the positions of these Doctors regarding BoD support their own broader implicit-faith ecclesiology ... which they most certainly do not.

Problem with that ecclesiology for a Traditional Catholic is that, if you hold it, you must say that there's no error in Vatican II and therefore no justification for the Traditional movement.  That's why EENS is THE burning issue for Traditional Catholics.  If I accepted the ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics,  I would be forced to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II.  I could apply a hermeneutic of continuity to V2 that makes V2 look like Trent ... again, assuming their ecclesiology.

We can quibble that various catechumens or catechumen-like people have in voto membership in the Church or else have an imperfect membership in the Church due to their profession of the faith (one of the criteria for membership as laid out by St. Robert Bellarmine) combined with in voto reception of Baptism.  That's the line along which St. Robert himself tentatively argued that catechumens could possibly be saved.  We can go back and forth on that, but it's a moot discussion.

When, however, the likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the faith (and without conversion before death) and intending to receive Baptism, then the ecclesiological implications of this are mind-blowing.

So if these can be saved, it must mean that they are within the Church before they die.  Consequently, the Church now consists not only of true actual Catholic members of the Church (whether catechumens fall into this category somehow or not is a purely hypothetical discussion) ... but also of various Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, etc.  Now you clearly have subsistence ecclesiology, where the central visible core of the Church consists not only of the actual/public (and perhaps in voto) members while you have various invisible members, not co-extensive with the Body of the Church, who are yet within it ... to varying degrees.  Now suddenly you have various degrees of partial communion with this subsistent core depending on how close doctrinally you might be (materially) to the fullness of Catholic doctrine.  Now these are truly separated brethren, brethren because they are within the Church (if they can be saved) and separated because of their material separation from the visible Church.  Now, when their intention to do the will of God itself pleases God and becomes salvific, since they have a right to please God and save their souls, they clearly have a right to follow their even erroneous consciences (since doing so pleases God and saves their soul).

I simply cannot comprehend how Traditional Catholics cannot see this ... except due to some cognitive dissonance on their part.

If this implicit-faith ecclesiology is tenable, then Vatican II does NOT teach error or heresy but simply adopts this opinion as that of the Church.  Since when is adopting a probable opinion tantamount to heresy?  In fact, the Church adopted the minority opinion of Abelard when she embraced the doctrine of Limbo for infants as her own.

This is why Matthew says that the Feenyites are obsessive. They can't understand that this post is about if you believe that Saint Catherine was blaphemous or confused, not EENS. The Feenyite heretic non-Catholics cannot have a single discussion without trampling on catholic dogma with their protestant self-interpretation as being the final authority of the Church.