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 31553 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12142
  • Reputation: +7668/-2344
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When one describes the typical souls who are in Limbo, having died without mortal sin, but unbaptized, the normal examples are young children and the mentally handicapped.  However, these requirements could also be applied to adults...especially if invincible ignorance exists.  (Personally I don’t believe in invincible ignorance), but why can’t an adult be in Limbo?  What’s the difference between Limbo and the least-worst part of hell for those adults who only died with original sin?  

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Forgive me if I'm coming across a bit harsh in my last comment. But with all due respect, everyone who has commented upon my posts have said I'm contradicting myself, espousing quasi-heretical statements, and say I'm avoiding the issues and questions from people when not one of you have answered any of my direct questions.
    So here let me make it clear and let's start with this. 

    Is it a defined dogma that the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for all without exception. Because by the very quotes that people here have posted such as from Trent, it is. So please clarify your positions so I'm not misrepresenting them.

    My original few posts, clearly made the distinctions between what Pius IX taught and what the new Ecclisiology teaches. Read it again.

    I clearly made the distinctions between BOD and final penance/perseverance in the case of an Unbaptized pagan and a baptized heretic. Despite what Lad said, he neither actually read my response nor bothered to read any of my previous comments. 

    I'm accused of not responding to direct questions, when almost none of mine have been answered. Perhaps Lad can look back when I asked him several questions about the irrelevant protestant example he brought up but that tries to say I'm talking in contradictory syllogisms....

    Pius IX might have been a liberal in his early career, (can you quote doctrine?)which you ironically dont produce evidence of then say I'm not producing any quotes. you asked what year he issued Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, and I posted 1863, just a few short years before Vatican I. 

    I have tried to stay consistant but you all are the ones going off on tangents. I dont know how many times I have stated exactly what Pius IX and his contemporaries taught in regards to I.I. and I'm accused of not stating my position or definition? 

    Pius IX taught Invincible ignorance 3 separate times throughout his pontificate. Not once does he say they will be formal members of the Church, or baptized. Not a single theologian under or after him deny that salvation is possible for someone in Invincible ignorance of the True Religion. 


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Is it a defined dogma that the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for all without exception.
    Yes, per Scripture, Christ Himself, and at least 3 dogmatic, infallible decrees.
    .
    Quote
    My original few posts, clearly made the distinctions between what Pius IX taught and what the new Ecclisiology teaches.
    There are differences between the 2, but both contradict Scripture, Christ and the 3 dogmatic decrees.  Pius IX's theories are orthodox only if understood in the ENTIRE context of his encyclical, and only if understood in the context of Scripture and doctrine.  This applies to ALL papal docuмents, for all popes, for all times.
    .
    Quote
    Pius IX taught Invincible ignorance 3 separate times throughout his pontificate.
    So what?  Just because a pope writes or speaks about something, doesn't mean it's dogma.  Just because he used the phrase "I.I." doesn't mean he meant it in the same way as you or anyone in our modernist times are using it.  I guarantee you that this term is used by V2 supporters differently than you and differently than Pius IX meant it.  Context matters.
    .
    Quote
    Not once does he say they will be formal members of the Church, or baptized.
    If you aren't reading encylicals and councils through the lens of defined, infallible doctrine, then you are attempting to 'privately interpret' in the same way as do protestants.  What do you think he meant when he said that an ignorant person could be "enlighted with divine grace" before they die?  If that doesn't mean they will join the Church, then what does it mean?
    .
    Again, if a person can die in invincible ignorance and gain heaven, then why do they need to be "enlightened with Divine grace"?  What's the point?
    Quote
    Not a single theologian under or after him deny that salvation is possible for someone in Invincible ignorance of the True Religion, if their ignorance is enlightened by God and they accept the Truth, before they die.
    Fixed the above sentence for you.  If you believe that an ignorant person can gain heaven, while still being ignorant, you are a heretic.  That's not Catholic teaching and it denies Scripture and multiple doctrines.

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Yes, per Scripture, Christ Himself, and at least 3 dogmatic, infallible decrees.
    .There are differences between the 2, but both contradict Scripture, Christ and the 3 dogmatic decrees.  Pius IX's theories are orthodox only if understood in the ENTIRE context of his encyclical, and only if understood in the context of Scripture and doctrine.  This applies to ALL papal docuмents, for all popes, for all times.
    .So what?  Just because a pope writes or speaks about something, doesn't mean it's dogma.  Just because he used the phrase "I.I." doesn't mean he meant it in the same way as you or anyone in our modernist times are using it.  I guarantee you that this term is used by V2 supporters differently than you and differently than Pius IX meant it.  Context matters.
    .If you aren't reading encylicals and councils through the lens of defined, infallible doctrine, then you are attempting to 'privately interpret' in the same way as do protestants.  What do you think he meant when he said that an ignorant person could be "enlighted with divine grace" before they die?  If that doesn't mean they will join the Church, then what does it mean?
    .
    Again, if a person can die in invincible ignorance and gain heaven, then why do they need to be "enlightened with Divine grace"?  What's the point?Fixed the above sentence for you.  If you believe that an ignorant person can gain heaven, while still being ignorant, you are a heretic.  That's not Catholic teaching and it denies Scripture and multiple doctrines.
    Ok thank you for answering the question. You stated it is without exception for all no matter what. No sacrament, no salvation. 
    So please use your logic and just admit that you believe the Church erred and taught heresy.  
    The Catechism of the Council of Trent, (every post Trent catechism for that matter)clearly taught that someone can achieve "Grace and Righteousness " (salvation)  without it. Therefore the Church under Pius V approved, spread, defended FORMAL HERESY. 
    That is the logical conclusion of your self admitted position. 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You stated it is without exception for all no matter what. No sacrament, no salvation. 
    No I did not.  I said it is infallible that the sacrament is REQUIRED for salvation.

    Quote
    The Catechism of the Council of Trent, (every post Trent catechism for that matter)clearly taught that someone can achieve "Grace and Righteousness " (salvation)  without it.
    Absolutely false.  The council of Trent said a few things concerning "desire".  You can interpret it 1 of 2 ways:
    1.  Conservative View:
    a.  Trent Fathers said that the reception of baptism AND the desire of the sacrament, are necessary for salvation. 
    b.  Trent Fathers included the idea of a "desire" to combat the protestant error that they could baptize people against their will and it would still be valid. 
    c.  Trent Fathers are saying that one must WANT to be baptized, and be so, in order to receive the sacrament.  This teaches the necessity of a proper intention of entering the Church.
    .
    2.  Liberal View:
    a.  Trent Fathers said that the reception of baptism OR the desire of the sacrament, are necessary for salvation. 
    b.  Trent Fathers are saying that if one desires (i.e. vows to receive) the sacrament, knowing it's purpose, knowing that it means membership in the Church, then one can gain this grace of justification.
    c.  Similar to an act of perfect contrition...one can be justified if they PROMISE/VOW to go to confession at the earliest time.
    c.  Such justification comes FROM and THROUGH the sacrament, not without it.
    .
    Nowhere, ANYWHERE in Trent do they say that one can be justified without baptism.  That's heresy.
    .
    Catechisms aren't infallible and so you can't compare them to an infallible council like Trent.


    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Justification of the impious, you know the quote. Or the desire thereof.  You still wont follow your own logic. Its taught in every catechism, every theology manual, every theologian post Trent, Pius XII, Holy Office, ect. You just wont admit where your logic takes you, and that is once again that the Church defended, and taught heresy, infallible or not.

    Saint Alphonsus literally wrote his book "A commentary on the Council of Trent" looking at the very dogmatic definitions you say contradict his teaching, perhaps he isnt the scholarly doctor the Church declare him. No in fact, he was a heretic...

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St Alphonsus says that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is required for BOD (same thing as St Thomas).  Trent says the same thing.  Trent teaches there are requirements for a proper disposition to receive baptism.  This applies for the sacrament or the desire.  
    .
    Nowhere does Trent make allowances for the ignorant.  Neither does St Alphonsus and especially not St Thomas.  
    .
    Just like many, many, MANY people before you, you mix together invincible ignorance with BOD and end up in heresy.  They don’t go together at all, catechisms notwithstanding (because catechisms aren’t infallible in the least).

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When one describes the typical souls who are in Limbo, having died without mortal sin, but unbaptized, the normal examples are young children and the mentally handicapped.  However, these requirements could also be applied to adults...especially if invincible ignorance exists.  (Personally I don’t believe in invincible ignorance), but why can’t an adult be in Limbo?  What’s the difference between Limbo and the least-worst part of hell for those adults who only died with original sin?  

    I speculate that this is possible as well.  Of course, the vast majority of adults commit some mortal sin, and all commit at least venial sin.  But I for one believe that acts of natural virtue could offset the temporal punishment due to sin.  So, for example, let's take the case of an infidel who dies giving his life for someone.  I speculate that such a one could in fact end up in Limbo or something very close to it with very little suffering.  This is the case for natural justice.  But we must recall that the beatific vision is beyond our nature and is owed to no one and can be merited by no one.  But, at the end of the day, we trust that God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I clearly made the distinctions between BOD and final penance/perseverance in the case of an Unbaptized pagan and a baptized heretic. Despite what Lad said, he neither actually read my response nor bothered to read any of my previous comments.

    I've read your posts, and they're a muddled incoherent mess.

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6076/-907
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Though Limbo is a part of Hell, it only contains children who died unbaptized before the age of reason, there are no adults. Limbo is different in that the children suffer absolutely no pains like those in Hell.  The adults in Hell suffer the pains of Hell to different degrees according to God's justice.  The children in Limbo also do not really suffer the loss of God because they never knew it.
    I agree with this. I do not believe it is possible for adults who died with Original Sin and outside of the Church, to have died free of mortal sin. If such a thing were possible, the faith teaches that God would never take that soul prior to that soul entering the Kingdom of God on earth.  
    "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

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6076/-907
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok thank you for answering the question. You stated it is without exception for all no matter what. No sacrament, no salvation.
    So please use your logic and just admit that you believe the Church erred and taught heresy.  
    The Catechism of the Council of Trent, (every post Trent catechism for that matter)clearly taught that someone can achieve "Grace and Righteousness " (salvation)  without it. Therefore the Church under Pius V approved, spread, defended FORMAL HERESY.
    That is the logical conclusion of your self admitted position.
    Grace and righteousness are attributes of the living, not the dead. Salvation is attributed to the dead, not the living. Trent's catechism is referring to the living, not the dead, not salvation. Therefore, that teaching which you have attributed to Trent, Trent never taught at all.

    So don't go around smearing Pope St. Pius V for approving formal heresy, because if any one is approving and promoting heresy, you are, and in your case, the ignorance is not invincible. Agreed?


    I've read your posts, and they're a muddled incoherent mess.
    Quite right.
    "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 forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is an Orthodox infant who is baptized a “member” of the Catholic Church?
    Or is he, being in the state of grace, simply “joined to” the Church?
    I contend the latter
    Pretty sure he's just a member. Baptism is the visible mark of Church membership, and he is not yet separated by heresy or schism. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you believe that an ignorant person can gain heaven, while still being ignorant, you are a heretic.  That's not Catholic teaching and it denies Scripture and multiple doctrines.
    I assume you also condemn +Williamson and +ABL as heretics then?
    This is one of my problems with people on here. They'll happily accept errors from their heroes, but condemn those same errors from other users. You'd think Bishops would be held to higher standards than laymen.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When one describes the typical souls who are in Limbo, having died without mortal sin, but unbaptized, the normal examples are young children and the mentally handicapped.  However, these requirements could also be applied to adults...especially if invincible ignorance exists.  (Personally I don’t believe in invincible ignorance), but why can’t an adult be in Limbo?  What’s the difference between Limbo and the least-worst part of hell for those adults who only died with original sin?  
    As I explained:


    Quote
    Though Limbo is a part of Hell, it only contains children (and mentally handicapped) who died unbaptized before the age of reason, there are no adults. Limbo is different in that the children suffer absolutely no pains like those in Hell.  The adults in Hell suffer the pains of Hell to different degrees according to God's justice.  That is the difference. The children live in an earthly paradise. The children in Limbo also do not really suffer the loss of God because they never knew of His existence, so they can't know what they are missing.


    Quote
    Pax Vobis also asked: However, these requirements could also be applied to adults...especially if invincible ignorance exists.  (Personally I don’t believe in invincible ignorance), but why can’t an adult be in Limbo?

    Limbo can't be applied to adults because the adults have reached the age of reason and sinned. Besides, I have never heard of unbaptized adults going to Limbo, which is an earthly paradise, you'll have to provide sources for that idea. The theory of invincible ignorance according to some invincible ignorant BODers is salvific and equivalent to being sacramentally baptized, meaning they go straight to Heaven, while other invincible ignorant BODers say, no, that they go to Purgatory. Basically the whole thing is made up as they go. Ignorance saves no one, and invincible ignorance is ignorance and ignorance saves no one:


    Quote
    He who is of God hears the words of God. Therefore, you hear them not, because you are not of God. St. John 8:47


    That whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered a sin, is hereby condemned as error
    . Pope Innocent II


     
    It does not suffice to say: "If I had known that such a thing were forbidden by the law of God, I would have conformed." St. Paul, in persecuting Christians, previous to his conversion, did not think that he was committing evil; the same may be said of Jews who persecuted and crucified Christ. And yet, Saint Paul and these Jews were not innocent and excusable. If they had died in that state, they would never have been saved. Hence, St. Paul, despite the good faith he acted on, acknowledges that he was at that time a blasphemer, and unjust: a persecutor of the Church. If, therefore, a person be ignorant of what is commanded­ or forbidden because he has not studied the law of God, his ignorance does not excuse him from sin.  St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori

     
    If ignorance is not a sin, then Saul did not sin when he persecuted the Church, because he surely did this in ignorance. Therefore, he should not have said: “I obtained the mercy of God” (I Tim 1:13), but rather “I received my reward”.  St. Bernard

     
    It may be true that there are, in the remotest parts of the world, some people who have not yet seen the light of the Savior. Certainly, God's manifold and ineffable goodness has always provided, and still provides, for all mankind in such a way that not one of the reprobates can find an excuse as though he had been refused the light of truth.

     
    But if Christ "enlightens every man who comes into this world" (Jn. 1:9) 1:9) why have so many remained unenlightened? How then does Christ "enlighten every man"? He does so, as far as in Him lies. For grace is poured out over everyone. It is easily attainable by  (St. Prosper of Aquitaine)

     
    The Gentiles walk in vanity, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance in them because of the blindness of their hearts. Ephesians 4:17-18

     
    For their own malice blinded them. Wisdom 2:21

     
    Those who keep their eyes shut cannot see. God made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it. Refusal to hear the truth leads to sin, and that sin itself is punishment for the preceding sin. Every sinner is inexcusable whether he knows it or not. For ignorance itself, in those who do not want to know, is without doubt a sin; and, in those unable to know, is the penalty of sin. In neither case, then, is there a just excuse, but in both cases there is a just condemnation.  St. Augustine

     
    It follows that ignorance has the nature of mortal sin on account of either a preceding negligence, or the consequent result; and, for this reason, ignorance is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. All sin proceeds from ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas

     
    I will destroy men off the face of the earth, saith the Lord: those who turn away from following after the Lord, and those who have not sought after the Lord nor searched after Him.  Sophonias 1:3,6

     
    Those who perish do not receive the love of truth in order that they might be saved. Therefore, God will send them the operation of error, to believe lying, so that all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity. II Thessalonians 2:10‑11

     
    No one is lost without knowing it, and no one is deceived without wanting to be. St Teresa of Avila

     
    But why is it that so many men are ignorant, even at this day? This is the reason: "The light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than the light" (Jn. 3:19). They have not known Him, and do not know Him, because they do not want to know Him, loving instead the darkness of sin rather than the light of grace.  St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori

     
    Unbelief has the character of guilt from resisting the faith, rather than from mere absence of the faith. St Thomas Aquinas

     
    Innumerable souls are miserably lost through ignorance of religion the source of every other calamity. St Frances Xavier Cabrini

     
    If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, You are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, or the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.   St Alphonsus Maria Liguori

     
    Reflect on the ruin of souls wrought by this single cause: ignorance of truths which must be known by all men alike in order that they may attain eternal salvation. This we solemnly affirm: the majority of those condemned to eternal Punishment fall into everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the Mysteries of the faith, which must necessarily be known and believed by all who belong to the Elect. Pope St. Pius X


    My heart is penetrated with grief when I think of the almost infinite number of souls who are damned for lack of knowing the true God and the Christian reli­gion. The greatest misfortune, O my God, is not to know Thee, and the greatest punishment not to love Thee.  St. Louis Marie de Montfort

     
    Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obliged to answer: there is absolutely none. St. Francis Xavier

     

    The excuse of ignorance is denied those who know the commandments of God, but neither will those who do not know be without punishment. "For, as many as have sinned outside the law shall also perish outside the law" (Romans 2:12). Without faith in Christ, no man can be delivered; therefore, they will be judged in such a way that they perish. "The ser­vant who does not know his Lord's will, and who commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes‑, whereas, the servant who knows his Lord's will, shall be beaten with many stripes" (Lk. 12:47‑48). Observe here that it is a more ser­ious matter for a man to sin with knowledge than in ignorance. And yet, we must not take refuge on this account to shades of ignorance, to find our excuse therein. Even ignorance which belongs to them who are, as‑it‑were, simply ignorant does not excuse any­ one so as to exempt him from eternal fire, even were his failure to believe the result of not having heard at all what he should believe. It was not said with­ out reason: "Pour out Thy wrath upon the nations who have not known Thee" (Psalm 78:6), and "He shall come from Heaven in a flame of fire to take vengeance on those who do not know God" (Thess.11 1:7‑8)  St. Augustine

     
    The crime of ignoring the Lord is not less than that of offending Him. Ignorance of God is sufficient reason for punishment  Minucius Felix

     
    And if our Gospel be hidden, it is hidden from those who are perishing, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, in order that the light of the Gospel should not shine unto them. II Corinthians 4:3‑4


    An ignorant person is like a dying man lying unconscious: he does not know either the malice of sin or the value of his soul. He goes from sin to sin, like a rag dragged through the mire.St. John Mary Vianney

    Perhaps he who asserts that a person cannot sin through ignorance never prays for his ignorances, but laughs at the prophet who prays: "O Lord, re­member not the sins of my ignorances!" (Ps. 24:7). Perhaps he even reproves God, Who requires satisfaction for the sin of ignorance, for in Leviticus He speaks of "sin through ignorance." If ignorance were never a sin, why is it that the High Priest entered the second tabernacle with blood, which he offered "for his own ignorance and for the ignorance of the people" (Heb. 9:7)? If one never sins through ignorance, then what do we hold against those who killed the Apostles, since they truly did not know that to kill them was evil but rather thought that they were "doing a service to God" (Jn. 16:2). Thus, also, Our Sa­vior prayed in vain on the cross for those who cruci­fied Him since, as He Himself testifies, they were ig­norant of what they were doing (Lk. 23:34) and thus they did not sin at all! Neither should anyone suspect that the Apostle could have lied when he said: "For, if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord" (I Corinth. 2:8). Is it not sufficiently clear, from these passages, in what great ignorance the man lies who does not know that one can some­ times sin through ignorance?  St. Bernard



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I assume you also condemn +Williamson and +ABL as heretics then?
    This is one of my problems with people on here. They'll happily accept errors from their heroes, but condemn those same errors from other users. You'd think Bishops would be held to higher standards than laymen.

    I have said before that +ABL's statement regarding salvation outside the Church is heretical.  Do I consider him a formal heretic?  By no means.  But the statement as it stands is in fact heretical.  I don't recalling having read anything by +Williamson on the subject, so I have no comment.