Author Topic: Vatican II BoD Ecclesiology (Read 7179 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** March 14, 2014, 06:37:51 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Here we find an example of such condemnation. The last great monk-pope, Gregory XVI, says:

"Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.

Two points are KEY.

1) Pope Gregory says that IN HIS DAY (notice, early 1800s), this error was already an "abundant source of evils with which the Church is afflicted" and "spread on all sides". Notice how the BoDers keep citing catechisms from right around this time forward as support for BoD ... as if this error was not already widespread and afflicting the Church by that time. We know that the distortion of BoD with the intent of uprooting EENS and leading to religious indifferentism was the lynch pin of the Illuminati plan to undermine and subvert the Church.

Yet these modern Traditional Catholics fail to see that they've been taken in and are on the side of the Church's enemies.

2) He condemns the false doctrine that as long as one is in a state of grace by not committing moral sin (i.e. "as long as morality is maintained"), people can be saved. That is again reducing faith to an act of will or good will, without the need for the intellect to embrace supernatural truth. It's subjectivism. Most of the BoDers have articulated this exact opinion.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #61 on:** March 14, 2014, 08:33:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: MyrnaM
I never even mentioned a Hindu in Tibet, what I said was, I was and still am taught, that God gives everyone a chance. He no doubt starts with that mustard seed, if the person cooperates with that He will give them more and more grace till a conversion to the Catholic Faith is obtained through the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost. I do not pretend to know how God will give pagans the grace, and am afraid when He does most say no to Him, at least in today's age. Yet, the point is everyone will have at least one opportunity.

What about the unbaptized infant who dies?

Quote
You owe tradition an apology, for comparing us to Vatican II.

Absolutely not. If you believe that the Hindu in Tibet must first convert to Catholicism, then I apologize to you. I do not apologize to the 95% of "Traditional Catholics" who believe that there's salvation outside the Church.

They are hypocrites and schismatics who relish excoriating Francis and the other V2 popes for the heresy of EENS-denial when their own EENS-denial is identical to that of Francis and the V2 popes. They hide behind the Latin of the Mass to pretend they are not heretics when doctrinally they differ in no way from the V2 crowd.

Ladislaus we already agreed that an unbaptized infant who dies is not condemned in the sense that they experience the pains of Hell, but will have a natural happiness. It is thought that Limbo is a part of Hell in the sense that these poor souls will not experience the Beatific Vision‎.

Of course the Hindu in Tibet who saves their soul converts through the power of the Holy Ghost, IF THE SOUL WAS SAVED. Where your type is wrong is you are judging that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to save their soul, and I believe nothing is impossible in the eyes of God. HE ALONE will decide. He can give His saving grace to WHOEVER He wants, so says the Bible. I am not saying this is the rule but the exception to the rule, I am not saying it happens to every Hindu in Tibet, maybe it never happens, WE DO NOT KNOW, the point is, YOU SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, and I say, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE THROUGH THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST.

Quote from: CMRIwebsite

The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jews has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history. The Council Fathers of Vatican II, however, have not only implied the salvation of heretics and schismatics, but also praised these other false religions in their “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” The opening paragraph of this declaration strongly suggests that, yes, salvation may be found outside of the true fold. It states:
“One also in their final goal: God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, and His saving designs extend to all men against the day when the elect will be united in that Holy City ablaze with the splendor of God, where the nations will walk in His light.” The meaning of this last phrase does not at all agree with a similar phrase found in Sacred Scripture.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #62 on:** March 14, 2014, 09:13:40 AM »

Ladislaus when you posted the comment on this thread
are you assuming they were all water Baptized? Just curious!

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30243&min=5&num=5

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:38:18 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Ladislaus we already agreed that an unbaptized infant who dies is not condemned in the sense that they experience the pains of Hell, but will have a natural happiness. It is thought that Limbo is a part of Hell in the sense that these poor souls will not experience the Beatific Vision‎.

But how did he "have a chance" to be saved? Whether he suffers in eternity isn't the question. We're talking about SALVATION here. This child was not saved and did not "have a chance", per your parlance.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #64 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:47:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: MyrnaM
Ladislaus we already agreed that an unbaptized infant who dies is not condemned in the sense that they experience the pains of Hell, but will have a natural happiness. It is thought that Limbo is a part of Hell in the sense that these poor souls will not experience the Beatific Vision‎.

But how did he "have a chance" to be saved? Whether he suffers in eternity isn't the question. We're talking about SALVATION here. This child was not saved and did not "have a chance", per your parlance.

I believe that we must agree on what salvation means.

I believe the definition in the Church would mean, we are saved from our sins. What does "being saved" mean to you?

The unbaptzed baby has no sins of their own, however because they still have original sin they are not pure souls, and only a pure soul can see God. Yet because they have never exercised their free will and offended God, they have no sins to account for, therefore they do not have to be saved from their own sins. They are saved from......"and the dreadful Judge will judge the people".

I might be wrong on this point, just speaking here what my common sense tells me without looking up exactly what "saved" means according to the Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #65 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:51:21 AM »

Of course, anything is possible with God, and He can save whoever he wishes but that is not a valid argument because we have learned, through Divine revelation, that He binds himself into certain patterns, that there is a particular way He wants to be glorified and that there is a chosen path of human salvation.

Here it is what the establishment of the Church and her Sacraments come in. What we Catholics must be may be concerned about is following these designs already established and revealed by God without questioning His justice. Our Lord's teaching is very definitive about Baptism. Water Baptism is absolutely necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven. No exceptions. To teach otherwise, is to teach error and errors can and have been exploited always by the enemies of the Faith.

Would you not agree that God is the absolute Lord of life and death?. That is one of the most popular arguments anti abortion, for example, that God is the only owner of life and that is up to Him to give life as well as to take it away. Not us. Do you really think that God would allow one of His flock perish without receiveing the Sacrament of Baptism? You are doubting God's omnipotence. Our death is not determined by us but by God. Why God would allow a soul dying before being regenerated if it was not because He foresaw that this soul had bad will?. God will not permit one of his Chosen ones die before receiving the waters of regeneration.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** March 14, 2014, 12:56:58 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I believe the definition in the Church would mean, we are saved from our sins. What does "being saved" mean to you?

Salvation means going to heaven, Myrna; that's the Church's theological definition. What it "means to me" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #67 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:32:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: MyrnaM
I believe the definition in the Church would mean, we are saved from our sins. What does "being saved" mean to you?

Salvation means going to heaven, Myrna; that's the Church's theological definition. What it "means to me" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Yes, we go to Heaven, because we are SAVED from our sins.

bowler · « **Reply #68 on:** March 14, 2014, 06:54:06 PM »

I believe that Myrna is here to wear you out Ladislaus. I wouldn't waste my time debating with a feelings oriented (and no reasoning) woman , we have enough feelings oriented and no reasoning men on CI, like SJB, LOT, Man of the W, and Ambrose, why bother to give her a forum?

1Tim 2:9-15
Instructions to Women
In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works. Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

Cantarella · « **Reply #69 on:** March 15, 2014, 06:56:07 PM »

And here we are debating if an hypotetical non-existing hindu in Tibet can be saved, when we have so many non-Catholics in our families and our cities to convert!….. I guess that is the social global effect of BOD (and consequently, denial of EESS): a total lost of zeal for souls and active Catholic evangelization.

Why bother if anyone can be saved in their false religion thanks to “invincible ignorance” and last minute subjective “desire” baptism? Better to keep our niceness and willigness to please and not offend the non-Catholics sensitivities…. :rolleyes:

Our worry and obsession about the hypotetical ignorant native is odd, in view of the salvation problems staring at us in our neighboor next door.

SJB · « **Reply #70 on:** March 17, 2014, 10:37:31 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Of course, anything is possible with God, and He can save whoever he wishes but that is not a valid argument because we have learned, through Divine revelation, that He binds himself into certain patterns, that there is a particular way He wants to be glorified and that there is a chosen path of human salvation.

Here it is what the establishment of the Church and her Sacraments come in. What we Catholics must be may be concerned about is following these designs already established and revealed by God without questioning His justice. Our Lord's teaching is very definitive about Baptism. Water Baptism is absolutely necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven. No exceptions. To teach otherwise, is to teach error and errors can and have been exploited always by the enemies of the Faith.

Would you not agree that God is the absolute Lord of life and death?. That is one of the most popular arguments anti abortion, for example, that God is the only owner of life and that is up to Him to give life as well as to take it away. Not us. Do you really think that God would allow one of His flock perish without receiveing the Sacrament of Baptism? You are doubting God's omnipotence. Our death is not determined by us but by God. Why God would allow a soul dying before being regenerated if it was not because He foresaw that this soul had bad will?. God will not permit one of his Chosen ones die before receiving the waters of regeneration.

Except the Church has taught differently, a fact you continue to argue with.

No authority teaches what you believe and that's why you can't provide a source to show us where you learned what you say is so obvious.

bowler · « **Reply #71 on:** March 17, 2014, 10:58:10 AM »

The truth is that you BODers are teaching something which is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, and the Athanasian Creed, your counterfeit BOD teaching that someone can be saved who has no explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity, which is actually the antithesis of desire.

The fact that I have to write explicit when saying baptism of desire and belief in Christ, and I have to say sacrament when saying baptism, and baptized member, shows just show how warped your minds have become that you use implicit desire for baptism, implicit belief in Christ, implicitly Catholics, invisible membership and so on... Language, hence clear dogmas, have absolutely no meaning to you people.

For the truth is that you BODers ALL teach and believe that there is salvation for those who objectively lived believing that they were Jews, Protestants, Hindus, pagans etc., and who objectively died not explicitly desiring to be Catholics. If that is not at least "implicitly" saying that Baptism is optional, and one can be saved in any religion, then real life and words have no meaning.

bowler · « **Reply #72 on:** April 15, 2014, 08:21:13 AM »

Quote from: bowler

The SSPX and your Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange both formally teach that anyone can be saved in any false religion, therefore, they would be hypocrites for criticizing JPII for teaching the same:

Quote from: Ladislaus
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church. Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally. Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology. This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.

If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error. I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.

You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES. If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).

Quote
Abp. Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976):
“We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”

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.)
_______________________________________________

From Garrigou-LaGrange's book Life Everlasting, under the chapter "The Number of The Elect" is the following:

..."Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of promitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even for pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace."

bowler · « **Reply #73 on:** April 15, 2014, 08:23:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You guys have always dodged this question also, one of many issues you refuse to face in your bad will.

If a Hindu in Tibet is saved, that means he's within the Church, because there's no salvation outside the Church.

[V2 Ecclesiology]Consequently, now the Church consists not only of actual real Catholics (the subsistent core) but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews in Palestine, pagans in the woods worshipping the Great Thumb, etc. And THAT is the essence of Vatican II ecclesiology. Elements of sanctification (belonging properly to the Church) can exist outside the Church as an instrumental cause of salvation (the same theology as articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre).

[Religious Liberty]+Fellay says that this Hindu in Tibet is saved by following the lights of his conscience. In that case, following the (erroneous Hindu) lights of one's conscience is salvific and pleases God. Since people have the right to save their souls and to please God, then simply follows that people have a RIGHT to follow their consciences, even if they're wrong.

[Ecuмenism]Since the Church now consists of not only actual real Catholics but also of various Hindus in Tibet, Jews, pagans, etc., then the Church is formally one but materially united. So it's perfectly possible to reconcile the fact that the Church is one with that fact that the Church is divided. You just make the appropriate distinction, formally one, materially divided. So now these Hindus in Tibet are really our separated brethren, brethren because they're formally Catholic and separated materially.

Your false doctrines ARE in fact Vatican II in a nutshell and all the Vatican II errors are just logical conclusions.

Go ahead, convince me that a Hindu in Tibet can be saved, and that's the moment that I renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as being essentially free from error.