Author Topic: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved? (Read 23488 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #75 on:** August 05, 2019, 09:56:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 04, 2019, 08:17:13 PM

#2) Maybe there's a reason God in His providence allowed such a person to live in such circuмstances, no? Don't you believe in Divine Providence at all? Even Bishop Williamson, who believes in BoD, has stated that it is a mercy of God when people are not enlightened with the truth, since God knows that some souls would reject entirely or otherwise not live up to the demands of the knowledge ... and therefore suffer a worse eternal fate. God knows why some people are born into the faith and others are not (and are never exposed to it).

It is not maybe there's a reason, there are no maybes to God. People are not born into a place and time by chance then God has to deal with them how best he can. They are put in exactly the time (B.C. to A.D., any century) and place that God has chosen for them from the beginning of time.

I repeat:

Quote

"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]

In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.

The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).

The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #76 on:** August 05, 2019, 09:59:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 04, 2019, 08:01:31 PM

Interesting. I'd like to read the quote, since I believe the same thing. I actually also believe that the so-called "noble pagan," one who lived according the lights of natural law and practiced natural virtue could even merit a type of natural happiness very similar to that enjoyed by the unbaptized infants in Limbo ... entering into a sort of "happy hunting ground", as it were. I believe that the degree of temporal punishment (and temporal happiness) can vary based on natural virtue and natural vice.

But supernatural reward (or lack thereof) is an entirely different matter and has little relationship with natural virtue. No human being can earn this through the exercise of natural virtue. It is a free gift of God. Why, then would God allow someone who excelled in natural virtue to die without sanctifying grace? Well, God also knows whether or not the person would have corresponded to the grace or, alternatively, rejected it and merited punishment in eternity.

If one were to properly separate the natural and the supernatural, then there would not longer be any questioning regarding the "mercy" of God in not rewarding natural virtue with supernatural grace. But people tend to blend these together and blur them in some kind of semi-Pelagan cocktail.

.
It is a view attributed to him but I have not read the primary source, which is in French. If you read French or can get it translated, it is here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/209579800/Cardinal-Louis-Billot-LA-PROVIDENCE-DE-DIEU-ET-LE-NOMBRE-INFINI-D-HOMMES-HORS-DE-LA-VOIE-NORMALE-DU-SALUT
.
The anthropological evidence suggests that a great many Pagans, especially in the Americas, were extremely savage and did not normally live lives commensurate with the natural law. Given that, I don't hold out the same sort of hopes attributed to Billot that a great many pagans went to Limbo. The precepts of the natural law are something no one can be completely ignorant of, and while the Light of the Gospel certainly gives us added incentive to follow the natural law, reason alone-- which all men have-- is enough to not violate it. One does not need the Gospel to arrive at certitude about the immorality of murder, for instance. I do not think being unevangelized makes someone so morally imbecilic as to miss a point like this.
.

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 04, 2019, 11:44:03 PM

Byzcat3000,
There’s no such thing as a non-visible, indirect or partial member of the Church.

In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII wrote, “Only those are to be considered members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.”

.

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 05, 2019, 08:52:35 AM

I said this because it's a logical conclusion for those who believe in invincible ignorance (which has never been proved, btw). If invincible ignorance exists, then missionaries are a waste of time, because there's no reason to preach the Faith to a person who will already be saved through no fault of their own.

.
There's obviously and sensibly a lot of talk in this thread about the Vatican II view of the Church and salvation. In my opinion, the real and fundamental problem is not invincible ignorance, not even Vatican II "ecclesiology" in a direct sense, but religious liberty. Obviously this is debatable, but my reasoning is this. The question of man's fundamental rights and duties before God are really philosophical questions first, with theological implications after. If you get the philosophy of man's fundamental duties to God wrong, then you're simply bound to err later down the line as well, especially with regard to how God will treat those who do or do not belong to some Church or another. Now it's certainly possible to wind up with a bad ecclesiology and soteriology via other routes, but if you start with an individualistically-sovereign view of man like DH does, you essentially guarantee that you'll get a bad ecclesiology and soteriology.
.
Part of my reason for pinning the problem on Vatican II's view of religious liberty more directly than its teachings on ecclesiology this is that having read what a great many pre-conciliar authors have to say about these issues, and I am not talking about authors like Rahner and the like but traditional authors, concepts like invincible ignorance, baptism of desire, membership in voto, etc. are easily maintained with a logic that simply does not lead to big-tent churches and the like. The missing ingredient for getting those sorts of conclusions is a view of man that insists on some inviolable duty to follow his specific religious impulses regardless of what they actually are. And that's not a premise granted by any of the pre-conciliar theologians so far as I can tell-- that's a true novelty (it's condemned in the Syllabus, after all), and that's really what "gets us" to these universal and quasi-universal salvation schemas. That's what gets us things like the Ballamand Declaration and similar anti-missionary policies and teachings.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #77 on:** August 05, 2019, 10:11:52 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 04, 2019, 08:01:31 PM

I actually also believe that the so-called "noble pagan," one who lived according the lights of natural law and practiced natural virtue could even merit a type of natural happiness very similar to that enjoyed by the unbaptized infants in Limbo ... entering into a sort of "happy hunting ground", as it were. I believe that the degree of temporal punishment (and temporal happiness) can vary based on natural virtue and natural vice.

To add to what you wrote, as we've stated many times:

Hell is not an amorphous solid mass of equal hell fire suffering for all, it has innumerable degrees of punishments, Limbo of the infants is in Hell, and it is a type of natural paradise (Limbo of the Prophets was in Hell). A Caribbean island with crystal clear waters and cool breezes is a paradise, BUT, you also have hot sun, humidity, rains, mosquito's, rats, have to find food every day...…..

The worst and deepest pits of hell are reserved for Judas and Catholics after him:

From Mystical City of God , by Sister Mary of Agreda.

537. Seeing him (Judas) thus beside himself Lucifer inspired him with the thought of hunting up the priests, returning to them the money and confessing his sin. This Judas hastened to do, and he loudly shouted at them those words: "I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!" (Mat. 27, 4). But they, not less hardened, answered that he should have seen to that before. The intention of the demon was to hinder the death of Christ if possible, for reasons already given and yet to be given (No. 419). This repulse of the priests, so full of impious cruelty, took away all hope from Judas and he persuaded himself that it was impossible to hinder the death of his Master. So thought also the demon, although later on he made more efforts to forestall it through Pilate. But as Judas could be of no more use to him for his purpose, he augmented his distress and despair, persuading him that in order to avoid severer punishments he must end his life. Judas yielded to this terrible deceit, and rushing forth from the city, hung himself on a dried-out fig tree (Mat. 27, 5). Thus he that was the murderer of his Creator, became also his own murderer. This happened on Friday at twelve o'clock, three hours before our Savior died. It was not becoming that his death and the consummation of our Redemption should coincide too closely with the execrable end of the traitorous disciple, who hated him with fiercest malice.

538. The demons at once took possession of the soul of Judas and brought it down to hell. His entrails burst from the body hanging upon the tree (Acts 1, 18). All that saw this stupendous pimishment of the perfidious and malicious disciple for his treason, were filled with astonishment and dread. The body remained hanging by the neck for three days, exposed to the view of the public. During that time the Jews attempted to take it down f rom the tree and to bury it in secret, for it was a sight apt to cause great confusion to the pharisees and priests, who could not refute such a testimony of his wickedness. But no efforts of theirs sufficed to drag or separate the body from its position on the tree until three days had passed, when, according to the dispensation of divine justice, the demons themselves snatched the body from the tree and brought it to his soul, in order that both might suffer eternal punishment in the profoundest abyss of hell. Since what I have been made to know of the pains and chastisements of Judas, is worthy of fear-inspiring attention, I will according to command reveal what has been shown me concerning it. Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.

539. This mystery I was commanded to reveal more particularly for a dreadful warning to all Christians, and especially to the priests, prelates and religious, who are accustomed to treat with more familiarity the body and blood of Christ our Lord, and who, by their office and state are his closer friends. In order to avoid blame I would like to find words and expressions sufficiently strong to make an impression on our unfeeling obduracy, so that we all may take a salutary warning and be filled with the fear of the punishments awaiting all bad Christians according to the station each one of us occupies. The demons torment Judas with inexpressible cruelty, because he persisted in the betrayal of his Master, by whose Passion and Death they were vanquished and despoiled of the possession of the world. The wrath which they had conceived against the Savior and his blessed Mother, they wreck, as far as is allowed them, on all those who imitate the traitorous disciple and who follow him in his contempt of the evangelical law, of the Sacraments and of the fruits of the Redemption. And in this the demons are but executing just punishment on those members of the mystical body of Christ, who have severed their connection with its head Christ, and who have voluntarily drifted away and delivered themselves over to the accursed hate and implacable fury of his enemies. As the instruments of divine justice they chastise the redeemed for their ingratitude toward their Redeemer. Let the children of the Church consider well this truth, for it cannot fail to move their hearts and induce them to evade such a lamentable fate.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #78 on:** August 05, 2019, 11:12:25 AM »

Totally agree with Mithrandylan on the religious liberty thing. Even if DH was intending to address communism, as one indult priest I know of claimed, the logic it uses remains problematic. Ecuмenism and religious liberty seem like the key issues to me moreso than ecclesiology per se

forlorn · « **Reply #79 on:** August 05, 2019, 11:17:34 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on August 04, 2019, 07:18:26 PM

It never came up at Trent, since it wasn't an extant controversy. As theologians, there were several Tridentine fathers who maintained this view, and according to Van Noort they did so precisely because they believe it better harmonized with God's mercy especially given the recent (for them) revelation that there was an entire half of the world that had been unexposed to the Gospel for a millennium and a half. Not dissimilar (apparently) to the sort of thing Fellay and Lefebvre had in mind, as far as I can tell.

I'm confused. Are you saying they taught that belief in a God that rewards was enough for someone invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, or enough for anyone(i.e a Muslim who rejects Catholicism but believes in a God that rewards)?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #80 on:** August 05, 2019, 12:31:28 PM »

Quote

The anthropological evidence suggests that a great many Pagans, especially in the Americas, were extremely savage and did not normally live lives commensurate with the natural law. Given that, I don't hold out the same sort of hopes attributed to Billot that a great many pagans went to Limbo. ... One does not need the Gospel to arrive at certitude about the immorality of murder, for instance.

Great point, Mith. The fantasy of there being a great many virtuous pagans, Indians, etc is not consistent with either history or present-day examples of the many bad catholics, who have so much more grace and spiritual help than non-catholics, yet they still fail to follow the natural law.
.
I watched the 1st part of Ken Burn's docuмentary on the American West and within the first hour, you had the story told of how the Spanish horse was introduced to America and how it changed the life of the American indian, giving him opportunities for better hunting, travel, and war. Even the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-catholic "historians" admitted that the vast majority of Indians used these horses to create conflicts with rival tribes, so much so that there was almost a state of constant war between the 7 or 8 major tribes in the Midwest alone. Not only were the men involved in war, but even the women and children glorified the fighting so that these Indians' entire culture revolved around it. Pictures of their "medicine men" or the tribe "priests" show them worshipping snakes and all other kinds of pagan rituals. To suggest that any of these cultures would accept the Faith, is to ignore reality. Those indian tribes which did accept the Faith were few and far between. The stories of the Spanish and French priests who tried to convert them are filled with failures. The vast, vast majority of these Indians held to their paganism. The rest were too busy killing each other to care.
.
It is interesting to note that many indian tribes ceased to exist, almost overnight, from various diseases that they caught from the European settlers - small pox, tuberculosis, dysentery, etc. Once one person was infected, the whole tribe was so and explorers and priests would often find a village that was filled with dead people, as if they died en masse within a few days, their tribe never to be heard from again. Of course, historians blame the European catholics for such deaths and attribute the tragedy to catholic imperialism or some such lies. Though it is obvious that the hand of God used these diseases to punish these Indians for holding onto their paganism.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #81 on:** August 05, 2019, 12:34:50 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on August 05, 2019, 11:17:34 AM

I'm confused. Are you saying they taught that belief in a God that rewards was enough for someone invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, or enough for anyone(i.e a Muslim who rejects Catholicism but believes in a God that rewards)?

.
I am relaying views ascribed to them by Van Noort, who was a well-known, widely used, and traditional dogmatist writing in the nineteenth century. Vega and Soto wrote in Latin only (they were Spanish Dominicans, and Soto was rather famous, having helped draft the council's schemas on grace; I'm not as sure what Vega's specific involvement at Trent was only that he was a representative), I've not read their primary works. Van Noort says that each of them held that a purely natural faith in a God who exists and rewards those who seek him is sufficient for an act of faith on the part of one whom is invincibly ignorant of the Gospels. Just to be clear I don't agree with that at all, and it is to the credit of later theologians who qualified that belief by insisting that only a supernatural faith in such a God would satisfy the requisite faith needed for salvation. That (i.e., the notion that a supernatural faith in a rewarding creator is sufficient for an act of faith) is a far more defensible view. That, so far as I can tell, is what Fellay and Lefebvre believe. For them, the remote Hindu or Muslim simply functions as an example of someone who is invincibly ignorant and that is a substantially different view from the typical Novus Ordo representative (like Robert Barron, say) who maintains that infidels qua infidels, can be saved.
.

#s3gt_translate_tooltip_mini { display: none !important; }

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #82 on:** August 05, 2019, 12:50:27 PM »

Quote

Just to be clear I don't agree with that at all, and it is to the credit of later theologians who qualified that belief by insisting that only a supernatural faith in such a God would satisfy the requisite faith needed for salvation. That (i.e., the notion that a supernatural faith in a rewarding creator is sufficient for an act of faith) is a far more defensible view.

It may sound better, but it's still heresy. Because no man can have anything supernatural through natural means (i.e. through reason, or will, or even prayer). It is a doctrine of the faith that "without the grace of God, we can do no good thing", as the Council of Carthage states.
.
It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spoke concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: “Without me you can do nothing,” and not “Without me you could do it but with difficulty.”
.
Supernatural Faith is a gift from God. No man can attain supernatural faith, except from Christ, through Baptism. No man can attain the grace of justification or even the grace of true contrition, except by God. So we can say that no pagan, however invincible ignorant, can attain justification or contrition for his sins, except Christ give him this grace. And if he not know Christ, how will he ask Him for such graces?
.
The best that an invincible ignorant person can hope for (if such a person exists); the best than a good-willed pagan can hope for, is natural contrition for sins, whereby they would be forgiven by God, and reach the Limbo area of hell. No non-Catholic can ever attain heaven.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #83 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:00:35 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 05, 2019, 11:12:25 AM

Totally agree with Mithrandylan on the religious liberty thing. Even if DH was intending to address communism, as one indult priest I know of claimed, the logic it uses remains problematic. Ecuмenism and religious liberty seem like the key issues to me moreso than ecclesiology per se

Ah, so here you go, finally admitting that you have no real issues with V2 eccclesiology.

Unfortunately for your position, Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty are nothing more than logical consequences of the NewChurch ecclesiology and soteriology.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #84 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:01:56 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 05, 2019, 09:56:35 AM

It is not maybe there's a reason, there are no maybes to God.

My use of "maybe" was simply rhetorical, as in, "Do you think that it just may be the case that ..."?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #85 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:02:27 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 05, 2019, 12:50:27 PM

It may sound better, but it's still heresy. Because no man can have anything supernatural through natural means (i.e. through reason, or will, or even prayer). It is a doctrine of the faith that "without the grace of God, we can do no good thing", as the Council of Carthage states.
.
It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spoke concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: “Without me you can do nothing,” and not “Without me you could do it but with difficulty.”
.
Supernatural Faith is a gift from God. No man can attain supernatural faith, except from Christ, through Baptism. No man can attain the grace of justification or even the grace of true contrition, except by God. So we can say that no pagan, however invincible ignorant, can attain justification or contrition for his sins, except Christ give him this grace. And if he not know Christ, how will he ask Him for such graces?
.
The best that an invincible ignorant person can hope for (if such a person exists); the best than a good-willed pagan can hope for, is natural contrition for sins, whereby they would be forgiven by God, and reach the Limbo area of hell. No non-Catholic can ever attain heaven.

.
That all follows from arguing that a natural faith in a rewarder God is a sufficient act of faith, but none of it follows from arguing that supernatural faith in a rewarder God (i.e., a belief in a Rewarder God motivated by an assent to God's authority as Revelear) is a sufficient act of faith.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #86 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:11:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 05, 2019, 01:00:35 PM

Ah, so here you go, finally admitting that you have no real issues with V2 eccclesiology.

Unfortunately for your position, Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty are nothing more than logical consequences of the NewChurch ecclesiology and soteriology.

.
Since he was just agreeing with me I feel like I have a stake in this comment. I'd appreciate you justifying your claim. As I indicated, ecclesiology and soteriology seem to me like they come logically after an understanding of man's duties and rights before God (which is what DH addresses). We have to give an account of man before we can give an account of his religio-social obligations (ecclesiology) and how those obligations affect his last end (soteriology). Do we not?
.
(By the way I certainly think there are problems with Vatican II ecclesiology, it is only that I see them as consequent rather than antecedent to the council's account of man and religious liberty).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #87 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:15:50 PM »

Religious Liberty:

According to the new soteriology, men please God and save their souls by following the lights of their even-erroneous consciences (rather than by possessing objective truth in supernatural faith). [Subjectivist soteriology.]

But men have a right (even an obligation) to please God and to save their souls.

Consequently, men have a right (and even an obligation) to follow the lights of their even-erroneous consciences.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #88 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:21:39 PM »

Ecuмenism

Within the Church you have not only actual Catholics but also men who are formally united to the Church while being materially separate. They are in the Church by virtue of this formal unity, but they remain materially separated from the Church.

Consequently, such men could truly be called our separated brethren.

So we are not in fact seeking formal unification with them, since we are in fact one on that level already, but rather the elimination of our material differences ... if possible. Despite these, however, we are in fact formally one with them, since they are within the Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #89 on:** August 05, 2019, 01:33:01 PM »

Quote

but none of it follows from arguing that supernatural faith in a rewarder God (i.e., a belief in a Rewarder God motivated by an assent to God's authority as Revelear) is a sufficient act of faith.

No man can attain anything supernatural without the Church, who is the giver of all supernatural graces.
.
As St Cyprian, Church Father, teaches:
.
“When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church” (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).
.
“Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you” [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark” (ibid., 73[71]:11).
.
“Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism” (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).

Author Topic: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved? (Read 23488 times)

Last Tradhican

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Mithrandylan

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Last Tradhican

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

ByzCat3000

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

forlorn

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Pax Vobis

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Mithrandylan

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Pax Vobis

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Mithrandylan

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Mithrandylan

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?

Pax Vobis

Re: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?