Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?  (Read 31579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46682
  • Reputation: +27552/-5115
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • C'mon give them some credit. They do make distinction as evidenced by their explanation.

    No, most of them absolutely do not give the matter much thought; they simply regurgitate something they read or were taught.  None of them think through the ecclesiological ramifications of what they're saying; otherwise, they would not at the same time condemn the V2 ecclesiology as "heretical".  Bishop Sanborn had a public debate with a Dr. Fastiggi, and Dr. Fastiggi destroyed him on this very contradiction.  When Bishop Sanborn was asked to list the heresies of Vatican II the first thing he said was a heretical ecclesiology.  But then later he stated that non-Catholics could be saved.  Dr. Fastiggi pounced and shredded him on this contradiction.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27552/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's the important part. A recipient of BOD or Final perseverance in the case of a baptized heretic would be a member of the Church, just through a different mode.
    Ok let's draw the distinction here. Your throwing around protestants the same as pagan.

    What are you talking about?  BoD is not a term that applies to "baptized heretics," since, uhm, they're already baptized.  What you're talking abut is the possibility that some heretics are merely material heretics and therefore remain formally Catholic. That has nothing to do with BoD.

    Nevertheless, I have YET to meet any Traditional priest in favor of BoD who would exclude infidels from the possibility of salvation.  None.  Should I cite the famous quotations regarding Muslims, Jews, and "Hindus in Tibet," that were declared capable of salvation?  Oh, wait, I take that back.  I knew a professor at STAS who taught the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.  He was cautioned by the rector for being "close to Feeneyism".


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    A recipient of BOD or Final perseverance in the case of a baptized heretic would be a member of the Church, just through a different mode.
    Comparing these 2 situations is like comparing apples to video games.  The former is unbaptized and is ignorant of baptism and also ignorant of (all things related to religion?  all things related to organized religion?  all things related to God, like an atheist?  Or a gnostic?) and is (supposedly) saved by their desire for... (who knows?  Some say they just have to desire God?  Or goodness?  Or simply love?).  
    .
    While the latter has been baptized, had received the gift of Faith, and is desiring to enter the Church, with a repentant attitude.
    .
    Not even in the same galaxy of comparison.

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, sure, I'll always give a Traditional Catholic the benefit of the doubt with regard to formal heresy or even formal error, but I will call out objective material error and heresy when I see them.

    But many of the Tradtional BoDers promote the notion that infidels without any belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity can be within the Church.

    And the reason this issue is so critical for me?

    Because if I were ever persuaded that non-Catholics could be saved, and could be in the Church, then any objections I have to Vatican II evaporate, and I drop being a Traditional Catholic ... except as a preference with regard to spirituality and attitude.
    Excellent point, indeed. You obviously don’t hold the actual Feeney position. It seems to me that you are more inline with my position. Am I wrong or do you think that my position is just an allowable one?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • What are you talking about?  BoD is not a term that applies to "baptized heretics," since, uhm, they're already baptized.  What you're talking abut is the possibility that some heretics are merely material heretics and therefore remain formally Catholic. That has nothing to do with BoD.

    Nevertheless, I have YET to meet any Traditional priest in favor of BoD who would exclude infidels from the possibility of salvation.  None.  Should I cite the famous quotations regarding Muslims, Jews, and "Hindus in Tibet," that were declared capable of salvation?  Oh, wait, I take that back.  I knew a professor at STAS who taught the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.  He was cautioned by the rector for being "close to Feeneyism".
    Which is why I put "final perseverance" could be understood as final repentance in the case of a baptized heretic.  Perhaps you missed that portion? You are the one who brought up the Protestant, so I assumed you were talking a protestant in ignorance?  Unless I'm mistaking in why you brought that up. But you still failed to make the distinctions for said protestant, you just threw out a blanket statement and tried to say as if people are saying any random protestant can be saved by their religion.


    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • No, most of them absolutely do not give the matter much thought; they simply regurgitate something they read or were taught.  None of them think through the ecclesiological ramifications of what they're saying; otherwise, they would not at the same time condemn the V2 ecclesiology as "heretical".  Bishop Sanborn had a public debate with a Dr. Fastiggi, and Dr. Fastiggi destroyed him on this very contradiction.  When Bishop Sanborn was asked to list the heresies of Vatican II the first thing he said was a heretical ecclesiology.  But then later he stated that non-Catholics could be saved.  Dr. Fastiggi pounced and shredded him on this contradiction.
    Perhaps you should re-listen to the debate when he then clearly lays out the principles for if such a one is in good conscience, invincibly ignorant of the Faith, God knows who they are if there is such a person, not Bishop Sanborn, you or I. His opponents arguments were terrible, while Bishop Sanborn clearly defended the Catholic position. The other guy was shown to believe that the Holy Ghost uses other religions as a vehicle for salvation, that is NOT what Bishop Sanborn teaches.

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Comparing these 2 situations is like comparing apples to video games.  The former is unbaptized and is ignorant of baptism and also ignorant of (all things related to religion?  all things related to organized religion?  all things related to God, like an atheist?  Or a gnostic?) and is (supposedly) saved by their desire for... (who knows?  Some say they just have to desire God?  Or goodness?  Or simply love?).  
    .
    While the latter has been baptized, had received the gift of Faith, and is desiring to enter the Church, with a repentant attitude.
    .
    Not even in the same galaxy of comparison.
    Lad brought up a protestant as an example against I.I. I did not bring it up first. If you re-read  my post I tried to basically make it known that they ARE DIFFERENT. Which is what I went on to explain. I clearly stated one is baptized, one is not. Lad brought up a Protestant example and tries to say if BOD/I.I. is true, then he sees no reason why to reject V2. And that's why I keep asking for you guys to make the necessary distinctions that pre-V2 theologians and teachers did. The new ecclesiology says that the Holy Ghost uses other false religions as a means of grace and salvation, that is not what BOD teaches and certainly not what Pius IX taught. It's not salvation for "non-catholics", its salvation for Catholics who convert and are incorporated into the Church by an extraordinary miracle of God. 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • David, you are using contradictory terms, that’s why your posts are confusing (and why many others who post on this topic are confused as well).
    .
    1.  Someone who is invincibly ignorant of the Faith cannot be saved.  They also cannot receive BOD, because being ignorant of the Faith, they are also logically ignorant of baptism, so they couldn’t desire it.
    .
    If you want to say that God CAN enlighten an ignorant person about the Faith, so they can accept it and be saved, well, ok. But no one, including Fr Feeney, would disagree with you.
    .
    In the above example, an “invincibly ignorant” person was not saved; to say so is a contradiction.  To properly phrase it - a FORMERLY ignorant person was enlightened by God, baptized a catholic, and was saved before they died.  Only Catholics make it to heaven.  
    .
    2.  It is neither a doctrine of the Faith, nor is it held by many saints, nor is it in Scripture that “invincible ignorance” is even possible.  For as John chapter 1 tells us (infallibly) that Christ “enlightens all men who come into the world”.  Can one be ignorant of God?  Absolutely not; it is heresy this say so.  
    .
    Can one be ignorant of the Faith?  Surely so, for sin blinds us all and those who do not follow the natural law/10 commandments can be ignorant as a punishment from God.  
    .
    Can an invincibly ignorant person make it to heaven?  No.  Only if God enlightens them and takes away their ignorance can one know the Faith and then accept it.  Again, only good Catholics can be saved.  


    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • David, you are using contradictory terms, that’s why your posts are confusing (and why many others who post on this topic are confused as well).
    .
    1.  Someone who is invincibly ignorant of the Faith cannot be saved.  They also cannot receive BOD, because being ignorant of the Faith, they are also logically ignorant of baptism, so they couldn’t desire it.
    .
    If you want to say that God CAN enlighten an ignorant person about the Faith, so they can accept it and be saved, well, ok. But no one, including Fr Feeney, would disagree with you.
    .
    In the above example, an “invincibly ignorant” person was not saved; to say so is a contradiction.  To properly phrase it - a FORMERLY ignorant person was enlightened by God, baptized a catholic, and was saved before they died.  Only Catholics make it to heaven.  
    .
    2.  It is neither a doctrine of the Faith, nor is it held by many saints, nor is it in Scripture that “invincible ignorance” is even possible.  For as John chapter 1 tells us (infallibly) that Christ “enlightens all men who come into the world”.  Can one be ignorant of God?  Absolutely not; it is heresy this say so.  
    .
    Can one be ignorant of the Faith?  Surely so, for sin blinds us all and those who do not follow the natural law/10 commandments can be ignorant as a punishment from God.  
    .
    Can an invincibly ignorant person make it to heaven?  No.  Only if God enlightens them and takes away their ignorance can one know the Faith and then accept it.  Again, only good Catholics can be saved.  
    Can you explain what is contradictory?  I have literally explained to you that if such a person is actually Invincibly ignorant of the Faith, God can save them just as Pius IX taught by Divine Light and Grace. So where is the contradiction? In my above posts that's exactly what I have said, that non-catholics do not go to Heaven, but that these people have a rare miracle of conversion, there by becoming Catholic. Again where is the contradiction? 
    Nowhere is it taught? Well Pius IX and all catechisms and approved theologians past him teach it. Many before them teach the same. Your asserting the Church approved of heresy.... 
    With all due respect it's almost as if you are not even reading my posts at all, as I have explained pretty much everything your claiming I'm not. 
    Pope Pius XII taught that an act of perfect charity is sufficient for salvation for adults who are not baptized, is that heresy?

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can you explain what is contradictory?  
    The writer's every word is contradictory, it has to be, because it is just a hodgepodge, just an  end run around all the dogmas. On this subject, dogmas do not exist for them. Here is the bottom line for them:


    Quote
    The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
    from CI thread :  https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sede-fr-cekada-refuses-to-believe-eens-dogmas-as-they-are-written/msg662416/#msg662416


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • David, I think what people wanna know is if someone who DIES invincibly ignorant can be saved, under certain conditions.  That’s a separate issue from God miraculously giving someone conscious knowledge of Catholic dogma

    I believe the answer to this is yes, as do most trad priests.  Most people here say no 


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6076/-907
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On this subject, dogmas do not exist for them.
    Exactly this. Well stated LT.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • David, I think what people wanna know is if someone who DIES invincibly ignorant can be saved, under certain conditions.  That’s a separate issue from God miraculously giving someone conscious knowledge of Catholic dogma

    I believe the answer to this is yes, as do most trad priests.  Most people here say no
    Right, that's what I'm just trying to demonstrate. Pius IX clearly taught that such a one can receive Divine light and Grace and that they are excused for not formally being a member of the Church if they meet certain stringent requirements which he outlines. It's not in contradiction to any dogmas, lest Pius IX taught heresy 3 separate times.  The people here just dont want to admit and continue to avoid my direct questions. 

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The writer's every word is contradictory, it has to be, because it is just a hodgepodge, just an  end run around all the dogmas. On this subject, dogmas do not exist for them. Here is the bottom line for them:

    from CI thread :  https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sede-fr-cekada-refuses-to-believe-eens-dogmas-as-they-are-written/msg662416/#msg662416
    So basically here is where your position boils down to.
    Premise 1. BOD and invincible ignorance are heresy
    Since you state your first premise,  the LOGICAL conclusion of that assertment is that the Church defended, taught, and propagated heresy through basically every ecclesiastical institution.  
    Conclusion. The Church can and has defected. 
    Dogmas are understood as the Church understands them, not you bud. You cant quote a single post-trent source that contradicts, condemns, or refutes BOD/Invincible ignorance.
    It's not really me your saying is contradictory, but the Church herself.
    Pope Pius XII taught that an act of perfect charity is sufficient for Unbaptized adults for salvation. Is that heresy?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6076/-907
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Others, not the Church, teaches a BOD. There is not one single official Church docuмent anywhere that uses the term a Baptism of Desire. But don't let that stop you. 
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse