BOTH are wrong.  
Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine?  
You ask an illogical question.  
Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes or no!

Frances, you're not making any sense.  How are "both wrong?"

Quote from: [Lover of Truth doesn't deny that he

]The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments scared many good willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of everyone is saved.

It was actually Lover of Truth who made that quoted comment. Of course, he will not touch the question posed on this thread.

The question posted, regarding which Frances claims, "BOTH are wrong," is as follows:

Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2:
 
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)


2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death:  “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment.  Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”


 

So, Frances, are you saying that St. John Chrysostom is "wrong" here?


.

.

I didn't notice a technical glitch here...........

BOTH are wrong.  
Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine?  
You ask an illogical question.  
Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes or no!

Frances, you're not making any sense.  How are "both wrong?"

Quote from: {Lover of Truth doesn't deny that he}

The horrifying heresy of Feeneyism, which turns God into an arbitrary tyrant and damns the innocent to an eternity of torments, scared many good-willed Catholics into embracing the opposite heresy of, 'everyone is saved'.

Curiously, it is not explained how believing that "everyone is saved" can make someone a "good-willed Catholic."    :confused1:

It was actually Lover of Truth who made that quoted comment. Of course, he will not touch the question posed on this thread.

The question posted, regarding which Frances claims, "BOTH are wrong," is as follows:

Which teaching do you think is dangerous #1 or #2:
 
1) to believe that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. (=Heroin BOD of Amdro, Lover of Truth, SJB)


2) St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death:  “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment.  Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”


 

So, Frances, are you saying that St. John Chrysostom is "wrong" here?


.


..................we just had an earthquake in Southern California.  It seems to me that it was possibly significant, perhaps 50 miles from the I-5 and I-14 freeways, occurring at 1:36 am, and magnitude of 5, duration total about 15 seconds, in two waves, beginning with a short burst (like the Northridge quake of 1994, which was also in the middle of January), then a pause of 2 or 3 seconds, followed by a rolling wave of about 10 seconds..............

Quote

So they won't answer the question, therefore they must be intent on hiding the truth.

 
We won't answer which question?

We keep answering you and those like you. But you do not want to hear.

Baptism of desire is de fide.  It was taught by Trent.  If you do not believe it, then you reject the teaching of Trent.

Heroin BODers are obscurist, they never speak straight, they use language to confuse rather than communicate and above is a perfect example.

Amdro says baptism of desire is de fide. However, don't forget that we are talking about Heroin BOD, therefore, Amdro is a liar hiding like a coward behind St. Alphonsus's comment that explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is defide.

Let me translate Amdro's lie, he is saying that  "Heroin BOD, is defide (Infallible), that the belief that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholic, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, he says is defied . All of which is a perfect example of an obscurist, who never speaks straight, and uses language to confuse rather than communicate

Amdro,

You might as well post a 0, for you never contribute anything.

Has anyone ever called St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom (and all the other Fathers who believed John 3:15 as it is written) heretics like you do?

Answer my question, which is more dangerous your Heroin BOD or believing John 3:15 as it is written?

:dancing-banana:
BOTH are wrong.  Which is more fatal, death by firing squad or death by guillotine?  You ask an illogical question.  
 :fryingpan:Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes or no!
......To spend all one's energies arguing for one or the other is itself, a ploy of the devil to sidetrack many an intelligent soul into neglecting his spiritual duties.  Some information is simply not for us on this earth. The only thing we can know for certain is that God's Judgements are fully just.  Each will get what he deserves.

Your analysis smacks of lukewarmness, sticking ones head in the sand. Remember, our Lord said:

"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth". (Apoc 3:16)

I have said many times that the theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, and Baptisms of Blood are relatively harmless theories, a relatively "harmless drug", however, that it always leads to Heroin BOD, which is foundational to the Vatican II revolution. Without Heroin BOD there would be no VatII declarations concerning ecuмenism or religious liberty and everything related to them. That is the heart of VatII.


I've said many times that I have nothing against those that believe in explicit baptism of desire of the catechemen or Baptism of Blood, and would not waste any time on it and that Fr. Feeney would have never said anything had that been what was being taught. Moreover, this thread is quite clear that we are talking only of Heroin BOD. That is nothing to be lukewarm about!

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:As best I understand it, the Catholic Church is the sole means of salvation.  There are extremes of interpretation on either side.  Some say that a Catechuman who has been instructed, and dies 10 minutes before he can be baptised is eternally damned to the full extent of Hell because he has acquired the prerequisite knowledge of the Faith.  The other extreme says anyone with a remote sense of natural good is saved in whatever religion, or no religion he finds himself when he dies.  These are both wrong.
But my point is that it is not for us to determine the judgement of God in every case.  To spend all one's energies arguing for one or the other is itself, a ploy of the devil to sidetrack many an intelligent soul into neglecting his spiritual duties.  Some information is simply not for us on this earth. The only thing we can know for certain is that God's Judgements are fully just.  Each will get what he deserves.

Frances, you are right, there are different interpretations.  This debate is strictly with those who believe in Baptism of Desire against those who reject it.

You appear to me to be an educated Catholic, you must know that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Church.  

There are three sects, those led by the SBC, the Dimond brothers, and Richard Inranyi that are attempting and in many cases succeeding in influencing Catholics to deny this truth of our Faith and join them in heresy.  

I know you think well of the resistance priests, talk to them about this, and I am certain they will counsel you to avoid this heresy.  The SSPX and CMRI have been combatting it for years, but the heretics influence is growing, and more Catholics are being ensnared.  

Well stated Ambrose.

BoD is not defined, so it is not non-negotiable. It is open for discussion, which is why there is discussion on CI about it, even though heroin BoD-ers wish there wasn't any.

On the contrary,

Denz. 1683  While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722].  And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church.  For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

1684  But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

The Church's theologians, both before and after Trent, have taught baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain.  I think I once posted the twelve or thirteen Doctors of the Church who've taught BoD here before, most notably the post-Tridentine Doctors, Ss. Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori.  There's also the testimony of the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (nn. 31ff., 70f.), the Roman Rituale, the Roman Martyrology (which includes the veneration of non-baptized saints) and the 1917 CIC.

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (magisterium).

    Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach there is also contained that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

    However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it.  For Our Saviour gave the things that are contained in the deposit of faith to be explained by the ecclesiastical magisterium and not by private judgments.

    Now, in the first place, the Church teaches us that in this matter we are dealing with a most strict precept of Jesus Christ.  For He explicitly ordered His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.

    Now, not the least important among the commandments of Christ is that one by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself governs the Church on earth in a visible manner.

    Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

    The Saviour not only gave the precept that all nations should enter the Church, but He also established the Church as a means of salvation, without which no one may be able to enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

    In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed towards man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when these helps are used only in intention or desire (ubi voto solummodo vel desiderio adhibeantur).  This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both with reference to the sacrament of regeneration and with reference to the sacrament of penance.

    In its own way, the same thing must be said about the Church, insofar as the Church itself is a general help to salvation.  Therefore, in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is required that at least he be united to it by intention and desire.

    However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but, when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit intention (votum) which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

    These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, “On the Mystical body of Jesus Christ.”  For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are really (in re) incorporated into the Church as members and those who are joined to it only in intention (in voto).

    Discussing the members of whom the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says:  “Only those who have received the laver of regeneration, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body or been expelled by legitimate authority by reason of very serious offences, are actually to be counted as members of the Church.”

    Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagem non pertinent), he mentions those who are “ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which “they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” since “they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.”

    With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all those united to the Church only by implicit desire and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally (aequaliter) in every religion.

    Nor must we think that any kind of intention of entering the Church is sufficient in order that one may be saved.  It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith:  “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”  The Council of Trent declares:  “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children.” - SUPREMA HAEC SACRA

The above is a HELLO? post.