Author Topic: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved? (Read 31390 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #240 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:25:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 02, 2020, 04:20:12 PM

I admitted this already, that this was my speculation.

BTW if God chooses to behave in this fashion, I see no injustice in it, nor do I think we have a right to question it. Nobody is owed the beatific vision.

However, if we can speculate like this, why can we not ALSO speculate that some souls who are never in this life visible members of the Church, never *consciously* decide to join the Church until their deaths, could nevertheless have been invisibly joined to her in some way, inside of her in a way known to God alone, receiving his supernatural grace, and ultimately being able to attain the beatific vision?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #241 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on February 02, 2020, 04:22:49 PM

.
Sorry, I thought I was clear that I was not speaking of unbaptized infants in what I said. Anyway, Our Lord said the wicked would be cast into eternal fire. I've never felt a fire that wasn't extremely painful.

I guess you don't get the point of my response. You were/are claiming that hell necessarily entails great suffering. St. Augustine didn't think so. He put the unbaptized infants in hell, but considered them to suffer "very little". In other words, he considered it possible for there to be "little suffering" in hell, despite your claim that there can be no such thing.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #242 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:27:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 02, 2020, 04:20:12 PM

I admitted this already, that this was my speculation.

Oh, I missed that, but Pax Vobis has not admitted it.
I'm open to learn where I am wrong on anything, and when I say I never heard of it, of something, I mean that I have read over $7000 worth of good old Catholic books and I have never heard any such thing. I mean whoever is saying that thing I never heard of, needs to produce the proof if they want me to believe it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #243 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:27:58 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 02, 2020, 04:25:04 PM

BTW if God chooses to behave in this fashion, I see no injustice in it, nor do I think we have a right to question it. Nobody is owed the beatific vision.

However, if we can speculate like this, why can we not ALSO speculate that some souls who are never in this life visible members of the Church, never *consciously* decide to join the Church until their deaths, could nevertheless have been invisibly joined to her in some way, inside of her in a way known to God alone, receiving his supernatural grace, and ultimately being able to attain the beatific vision?

Some speculation is precluded by Church teaching, i.e. the matter has been closed off. So just because one can speculate about one thing, that would not mean that one can speculate about anything. If someone could explain any Church teaching which precludes my speculation on this point, then I will at once abandon it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #244 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:30:31 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 02, 2020, 04:27:02 PM

Oh, I missed that, but Pax Vobis has not admitted it.
I'm open to learn where I am wrong on anything, and when I say I never heard of it, of something, I mean that I have read over $7000 worth of good old Catholic books and I have never heard any such thing. I mean whoever is saying that thing I never heard of, needs to produce the proof if they want me to believe it.

I've never heard of it either in any prior Catholic author. Call it Ladislausism if you want ... or Paxism. Not sure which of us came up with it first.

I believe that God rewards even natural goodness in some respect. He taught unequivocally, for instance, that whatsoever good we do to the least of our brethren, we do to Him. He also taught that no greater love does a man have than to lay down his life for others. Let's take the case of an infidel who spends his life helping the poor, the sick, the suffering ... and in the end even sacrifices his life for them ... all done without having faith. Do we not believe that the justice of God would not reward him SOMEHOW for this goodness? I absolutely do. So I believe that this natural goodness will be rewarded by God by offsetting some of the natural (aka temporal) punishment due to him in hell. I believe that in the realm of natural reward and punishment, God does in fact have a balance sheet. So, again, one person steals $1,000, never repents, and dies ... without faith. Another person steals $1,000, repents, repays the money, donates $10,000 to the poor to make up for his theft, and dies ... without faith. Do both of these suffer the same torments? I can't see it.

Now ... most, the EENS-deniers, would like to reward this infidel with heaven for these naturally-good deeds ... and I think that their hangup is precisely that "how could God punish with eternal torments someone who did so much good and lived such a naturally virtuous life ... just because he didn't have the faith." St. Gregory nαzιanzen distinguished the unmerited supernatural reward of the beatific vision from the punishment due for actual sin ... and he used this very distinction in his rejection of Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire in fact derives from no other place than speculation about how it would be unfair of God to punish such as these for all eternity. But, according to St. Gregory, the mere deprivation of beatific vision is no "punishment" at all. If one suffers in hell, it's on account of various sins he had actually committed, and not due to the deprivation of this unmeritable gift.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #245 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:30:53 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 02, 2020, 04:25:04 PM

BTW if God chooses to behave in this fashion, I see no injustice in it, nor do I think we have a right to question it. Nobody is owed the beatific vision.

However, if we can speculate like this, why can we not ALSO speculate that some souls who are never in this life visible members of the Church, never *consciously* decide to join the Church until their deaths, could nevertheless have been invisibly joined to her in some way, inside of her in a way known to God alone, receiving his supernatural grace, and ultimately being able to attain the beatific vision?

You can't speculate on that because it is dogmatically defined that they go to hell. Read all of the dogmas I keep posting with the red satirical responses from EENS deniers and tell me where your person that never existed could escape hell.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #246 on:** February 02, 2020, 04:42:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 02, 2020, 04:30:31 PM

I've never heard of it either in any prior Catholic author. Call it Ladislausism if you want ... or Paxism. Not sure which of us came up with it first.

The problem with it, is that Limbo of the Infants is a paradise, there is nothing like it on Earth. It is for infants, who outside of original sin, are as pure as the angels. God took their life and put them there. How could anyone think that an unbaptized adult Hindu can be as pure as an infant? There is no way. Like I said: the real "good" Hindu was taken by God as an infant. The native on the island that never saw a missionary, was born there for his own good, so he could not reject Christ, and if he was good, he will go to a part of Hell with less torments, maybe like living in Alaskan Winters like an Eskimo. No piece of cake for all eternity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #247 on:** February 02, 2020, 05:03:56 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 02, 2020, 04:42:39 PM

The problem with it, is that Limbo of the Infants is a paradise, there is nothing like it on Earth. It is for infants, who outside of original sin, are as pure as the angels. God took their life and put them there. How could anyone think that an unbaptized adult Hindu can be as pure as an infant? There is no way. Like I said: the real "good" Hindu was taken by God as an infant. The native on the island that never saw a missionary, was born there for his own good, so he could not reject Christ, and if he was good, he will go to a part of Hel with less torments, maybe like living in Alaskan Winters like an Eskimo.

Well, infants have no sins, but they also have no merits. So they should have neither happiness nor punishment ... by rights. St. Thomas actually was the first one who speculated that they enjoy perfect natural HAPPINESS. And some later theologians (including St. Robert Bellarmine) pulled back on that. In any case, the balance sheet for the infants is: SINS: 0, MERITS: 0. So it's a wash. But what if you have a pagan who had a balance sheet of: SINS 500, MERITS 1000?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #248 on:** February 02, 2020, 06:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 02, 2020, 05:03:56 PM

Well, infants have no sins, but they also have no merits. So they should have neither happiness nor punishment ... by rights. St. Thomas actually was the first one who speculated that they enjoy perfect natural HAPPINESS. And some later theologians (including St. Robert Bellarmine) pulled back on that. In any case, the balance sheet for the infants is: SINS: 0, MERITS: 0. So it's a wash. But what if you have a pagan who had a balance sheet of: SINS 500, MERITS 1000?

Man dies a pagan= he goes to Hell. He would have ended in Hell had he lived 100,000 years (read below). The level of torments of Hell will be just, for it is God who decides.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #249 on:** February 02, 2020, 07:07:14 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 02, 2020, 06:44:20 PM

The level of torments of Hell will be just, for it is God who decides.

Well, obviously. What we're discussing is speculation regarding their degree, depending on various hypothetical scenarios.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #250 on:** February 02, 2020, 07:41:51 PM »

I’ve never heard of the “limbo of infants” only “limbo”. The quote by Innocent III that has been posted 3x does not limit limbo to infants but anyone who dies with original sin only. An adult can, in theory, repent of their sins, so they could die with only original sin on their souls. Of course this is my opinion, but so is the idea that limbo is ONLY for infants.

Stanley N · « **Reply #251 on:** February 02, 2020, 08:36:45 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 02, 2020, 07:41:51 PM

I’ve never heard of the “limbo of infants” only “limbo”. The quote by Innocent III that has been posted 3x does not limit limbo to infants but anyone who dies with original sin only. An adult can, in theory, repent of their sins, so they could die with only original sin on their souls. Of course this is my opinion, but so is the idea that limbo is ONLY for infants.

Is it possible for someone to have personal sins erased without sanctifying grace?

The Limbo you're discussing was often called the limbo of the infants to distinguish from the limbo of the fathers.

Nevertheless, as you state, that limbo is not a church doctrine. It's more a common opinion of theologians, bounded by some doctrines.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #252 on:** February 02, 2020, 09:35:37 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 02, 2020, 08:36:45 PM

The Limbo you're discussing was often called the limbo of the infants to distinguish from the limbo of the fathers.

Nevertheless, as you state, that limbo is not a church doctrine. It's more a common opinion of theologians, bounded by some doctrines.

It is a declared dogma of the Church and has been for longer than EENS:

Quote

Those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer] no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God."
-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216), Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #253 on:** February 02, 2020, 09:39:53 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 02, 2020, 07:41:51 PM

I’ve never heard of the “limbo of infants” only “limbo”.

Posted by Ladislaus:
Catholic Encyclopedia on Limbo -- PLEASE NOTE THE SENTENCE IN BOLD
Quote

Quote

Limbus infantium

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #254 on:** February 02, 2020, 09:42:04 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on August 03, 2019, 08:27:33 AM

Rationally, I cannot see a foot to stand on with this position. Any way of saying someone who's not a baptised Christian and doesn't even desire baptism could be saved seems like a direct contradiction of EENS. And yet even the largest Trad groups all teach the same. Even +Lefebvre taught that people in false religions can be saved. How is it that even those who claim to be rejecting V2 are still supporting this denial of EENS? Even groups that don't even claim communion with Rome at all, like the CMRI, still teach this. Only various independent individuals like the Dimonds seem to teach otherwise. Despite how obvious it is that EENS = EENS, it still seems like the overwhelming majority of clergymen, even those who claim to reject modernism and its associated heresies, still teach that those in false religions can be saved. "Implicit baptism of desire" or what have you. Why do they teach this?

Hello OP-

Because the Church is unanimous in affirming that those who die in grace are united to the Church, even if not members of the Church.

Nobody ever thought to question it before Feeney went off the rails.

Sorry this is difficult for you (and some others here), but I hope you will one day get through/over it.

Author Topic: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved? (Read 31390 times)

ByzCat3000

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?

Last Tradhican

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?

Last Tradhican

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?

Ladislaus

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?

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?

Stanley N

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?

Last Tradhican

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

SeanJohnson

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