Author Topic: Video: NO Priest: Athiests Can Be Saved (Read 7364 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #15 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:00:23 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Lord Phan,

That dogma must be understood with the mind of the Church which has always realized exceptions.

Since when? Vatican II?

LordPhan · « **Reply #16 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:00:53 AM »

From the Syllubus of Errors:

"16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

CONDEMNED!

You are very quickly becoming a Formal Heretic.

LordPhan · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:04:04 AM »

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Santo Subito · « **Reply #18 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:07:30 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

From the Syllubus of Errors:

"16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

CONDEMNED!

You are very quickly becoming a Formal Heretic.

Are you serious? Who is claiming that false religions offer "the way of eternal salvation"? As I said, if people are saved in false religions they are saved in spite of it and not because of it.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #19 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:09:31 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

And the Church interprets this to mean the following:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt

Quote

...Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this
Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July
27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the
following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that
the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that
invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

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 (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

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

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the
Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments
that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained
in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there
is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He
explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe
all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least
place 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 in a
visible manner governs the Church on earth.

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.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the
Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation
without which no one can 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
toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by
divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances
when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see
clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to
the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of
penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far
as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, 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
necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

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 desire, so called because it is included
in that good disposition of 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> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193
ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes
between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as
members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on
earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be
included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess
the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate
themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate
authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most
affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body
of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and
desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation,
but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which
they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain
deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be
enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise
words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all
united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely
assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope
Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641
ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur
moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the
Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the
desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect
charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a
person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe
that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "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" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are
proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the
genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and
are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain
conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which
cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by
which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of
submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops
"whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts
20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can
consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted
such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and
1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of
discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a
source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious
Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of
the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the
catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not
even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons
because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a
priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics
shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the
purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of
competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is
prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church
seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be
excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty
of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who
as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let
them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished
by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence,
having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused
from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any
restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to
the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

+ F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

LordPhan · « **Reply #20 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:15:46 AM »

Not a single thing in there was on your side. It validated what I have said and condemned your view. Read it over if you must.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #21 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:50:45 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Not a single thing in there was on your side. It validated what I have said and condemned your view. Read it over if you must.

It vitiates your absolutist stance and admitted of exceptions to the proof text dogma you cited, just as I said.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #22 on:** September 21, 2011, 03:27:59 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Using your logic Santo, nearly all non-Catholics go to Heaven because they're practicing what THEY believe to be true. But it does not work that way, it isn't about what you think is true. Either you accept God and His Church or you aren't saved, simple as that. The only way an atheist could be saved is if he either repented or never even heard of God and has no one to teach Him of God (like the people in countries such as Africa, although I'm not sure they would be called atheists per se). There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So someone raised Protestant who was fed lies about the Church all his life by people he trusted automatically goes to Hell just because the circuмstances of his life never allowed for him to know the Truth?

What part of "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" do you not understand? But you know, I remember reading a post from someone on CAF, and that person said there being no salvation outside the Catholic Church just means that without the Church there would be no salvation and that people of other religions can still be saved. That is totally false, Novus Ordites don't seem to be able to properly interpret what the Church teaches.

If that's what you people on CAF believe, then I consider it a badge of honor I was banned from that modernist forum.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #23 on:** September 21, 2011, 03:40:37 PM »

Read the letter from the Holy Office of Pius XII to see what I believe.

Caraffa · « **Reply #24 on:** September 21, 2011, 09:12:42 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.

Salvation by good intentions? Atheist of good will? Their denial of God is the result of a bad will. Your position as well as Fr. "Rober Baron" is worse than Pelagianism. Why? Because believing that a God exists is not the result of grace; in other words, people are not born atheists.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #25 on:** September 22, 2011, 10:46:49 AM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Santo Subito
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.

Salvation by good intentions? Atheist of good will? Their denial of God is the result of a bad will. Your position as well as Fr. "Rober Baron" is worse than Pelagianism. Why? Because believing that a God exists is not the result of grace; in other words, people are not born atheists.

How can they be morally culpable for holding a position that they in good conscience believe to be true? This belief could be due to mental blocks of understanding, insufficient information, or faulty information.

LordPhan · « **Reply #26 on:** September 22, 2011, 11:08:38 AM »

Quote

(Latin in, not, and gnarus, knowing)

Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of our intellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself. In this article it is the ethical aspect and consequences of ignorance that are directly under consideration. From this point of view, since only voluntary and free acts are imputable, ignorance which either destroys or lessens the first-named characteristic is a factor to be reckoned with. It is customary then to narrow somewhat the definition already given of it. It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want of knowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of a person to possess it may be called nescience.

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circuмstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circuмstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incuмbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.

The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted.
•Ignorance of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
•Ignorance of the fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circuмstance is unknown.
•Ignorance of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.
We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. Antecedent ignorance is in no sense voluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes any voluntary failure to inquire. Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same. Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements of doctrine.
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man's moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Sources

TAUNTON. The Law of the Church (London, 1906); JOSEPH RICKABY, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicuм Morale (Prato, 1898); TAPPARELLI, Dritto naturale (Rome, 1900); ZIGLIARA, Summa Philosophica (Paris, 1891).

twiceborn · « **Reply #27 on:** September 22, 2011, 11:49:20 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.

This is just the typical modernist subterfuge, moving from judging the objective namely, that the person rejects God to the subjective, this person may due to insufficient information or due to an honest but misguided act, decide to become an atheist. We pass from judging based on objective virtues (faith) or vices (unbelief) into judging subjective sentiments.

Now with regards to the so called honesty of the atheist and wether or not they may be saved, the Scriptures state that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrew 10:6), that it is the FOOL who says in his hearth that there is no God (Psalms 13:1) and that all are without excuse for it is clear to them that God exists (Romans 1:20).

So the preist who claims that atheists, who deny that which is manifest to them and who lack the very faith by which God is pleased, may be saved on account of their "good will" (which cannot be good if they reject God), is objectively wrong in his statement independently of the subjective reasons by which he came to embrace that position.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #28 on:** September 22, 2011, 03:34:06 PM »

Quote from: A modernist

How can they be morally culpable for holding a position that they in good conscience believe to be true? This belief could be due to mental blocks of understanding, insufficient information, or faulty information.

Santo, your stance is illogical. If what you say is true that what they do is "of good will" then why would anyone end up in hell? Why would anyone go for doing what they believed to be true? Do you believe anyone goes to hell at all?

Our Lord said many, many times in the Bible that very few make it to Heaven.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #29 on:** September 22, 2011, 04:36:25 PM »

I'm not SS but Abp. Lefebvre means that someone with invincible ignorance can be a member of the Church by desire, even if he attends the services of a false religion.