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

Author Topic: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?  (Read 2027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6293
  • Reputation: +3330/-1939
  • Gender: Male
XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
« on: February 18, 2021, 01:13:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This thread is dedicated solely to getting a simple answer from CI Member XavierSem


    Last Tradhican asks for 7th time:

    all I need to know is just if you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith below , very simple, yes or no?

     
     Do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards?
    :
     
     From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
     
     1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
     
     2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
     
     Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.  It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church:  ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’  When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell.  Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  This must be preached.”
     
     Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

    Offline Catholic Ram

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 65
    • Reputation: +32/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #1 on: February 18, 2021, 01:24:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Perhaps XavierSem works a few cubicles down from poche in Hasbara's department of internet propaganda and cognitive manipulation?


    Offline Tallinn Trad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 777
    • Reputation: +372/-161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #2 on: February 18, 2021, 02:10:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now that the Catholic Church has wrecked itself and 99% blindly follow Francis the destroyer, there is not much salvation inside it either.

    I'd say I am reasonably sure, 90% that both the sincere and virtuous Tibetan monk and the modern contracepted Catholic Democrat mother and father of two children are BOTH damned.

    The second most likely option 10% is that the monk is saved and the modern Catholic Biden supporting parents are damned.   The monk has at least been as virtuous as he could be.

    I would assume the Good Samaritan went to heaven otherwise what was the point of the story?  I know he was fictional but such people exist in real life.  I don't see how in justice a Samaritan who did not know Christ is saved but a Tibetan monk is not. 

    If they are both saved, then that is in effect universal salvation.  So what is the point in my bothering to be good and avoid sin?  So both saved is impossible as far as I am concerned.  It is fundamentally against justice. 

    I don't understand myself how the Church has not defected.  It appears to have done just that.  I am caught in a paradox.  It is miserable

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #3 on: February 18, 2021, 02:28:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Now that the Catholic Church has wrecked itself and 99% blindly follow Francis the destroyer, there is not much salvation inside it either......
    Please ask your questions elsewhere, all your posting will accomplish is that XavierSem will now spam this thread.
    This thread is strictly to get one answer. I'll answered your question in the St. John Vianney thread

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #4 on: February 18, 2021, 05:55:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • cricket cricket cricket cricket





    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #5 on: February 18, 2021, 09:33:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I already answered your question n times, and I will answer it again after you answer mine, on Cornelius, in a new thread. If I answer yours now, you will run away without answering mine, as you've already been doing in every single thread. You are either unable or unwilling to defend what you believe. I can and I have. I will give you a preview of my answer by posting what I said to Donkath earlier,

    "Dear Donkath, I must have answered Last Tradhican's question on what I believe like 10 times, including on this [St. John Vianney] thread, but he doesn't want to hear it. I don't believe anyone will be saved without conversion, without at least explicit faith in Jesus Christ and perfect contrition. I gave Last Trad a source from Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, which the SSPX endorsed, that said no one is saved without faith in Christ as true God and Savior. Last Trad absurdly implied this didn't mean what it said. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been arguing against salvation by implicit faith for a long time [a well known fact], and I agree with H.E.

    I've been trying to search for what exactly Bishop Fellay believes, and am not sure H.E. believes the Hindu in question would be saved without conversion. Since H.E. is still alive, someone can contact and ask: This is what H.E. said recently, "Once again, the Holy See’s response was to say: “That is not from the Magisterium.” And quite recently you have a docuмent published by Cardinal Koch on relations with the Jҽωs (Docuмent of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jҽωs, December 10, 2015). It is a terrible docuмent, completely heretical, which claims that the Jҽωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jҽωs: “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.”

    But then what game are they playing? They teach without teaching. This causes confusion everywhere. It is a new attitude. Until now it was clear to every Catholic that when Rome speaks: Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Rome speaks, Rome teaches, and that’s the end of the discussion. And here they are telling us that, no, “it is intended to be a starting point for further theological thought.” https://sspx.org/en/can-pastoral-council-be-debatable

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #6 on: February 18, 2021, 09:54:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The questions are simple and yet you do not have the ability to answer them? Maybe all you can do is spam.

    I don't need to consult the pope, Bp. Williamson, Bp. Fellay or anyone else to answer what I believe. Yet, you do not answer my simple question. Their quotes are right in front of you. Does language mean anything to you? Apparently not.

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #7 on: February 18, 2021, 09:58:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What are you looking for, precisely? Do you want me to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay? I'm not going to do that.

    I've already answered what I believe. You are really blind if you can't or don't want to see it. What Bp. Fellay believes is an open question. Someone who has his contact address can email H.E. and find out Bishop Fellay's stance on the Explicit-Implicit Faith Question. I believe in Explicit Faith. I don't know for sure what Bishop Fellay believes. If you want to know, mail and ask H.E.


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #8 on: February 18, 2021, 10:13:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • What are you looking for, precisely? Do you want me to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay? I'm not going to do that.
    If you do not condemn them, then you agree with them. Just admit it and say why and be done with it.

    They and you both contradict the Athanasian Creed, which you falsely claimed to uphold. You play games to get around all the dogmas including the Athanasian Creed in your teaching that no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Their belief is the same as yours in a way, that Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics, but when God reveals Himself to them, they can convert and be saved without baptism.

    Your "variety of salvation by implicit faith (and all varieties of implicit faith) has never  been taught by any Father, saint, doctor, pope.  

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #9 on: February 18, 2021, 10:16:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dogmas are the final word from the Holy Ghost, being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.


    The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.



    Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jҽωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, any person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy!


    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jҽωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jҽωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)


    Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a god that rewards)


    Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

    “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a god that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)



    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:

    “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a god that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)




    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

    “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a god that rewards)




    Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:

    “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” (Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)


    Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”


    Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”



    Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”




    Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV.

    A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
    By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire “implicit” desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions for the water baptism, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)


    Chapter VII. What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

    This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

    Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)


    Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)


    Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism
    Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)


    Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)


    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)


    Pope Pius XII, mєdιαtor Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” ( persons who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)


    (Oh, I forgot invincible ignorance, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invincible ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #10 on: February 18, 2021, 10:18:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not an ecclesiastical anarchist like you Dimondites, to condemn holy Bishops. If you disagree with them, write to them and ask them to explain. I bet if someone presented to Bishop Fellay the teaching of St. Alphonsus, on explicit faith, as found in the manuals, H.E. would agree with them. You people are not interested in solving problems, only in self-justification, and in your bitter polemics. I am with Bishop Athanasius, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Fellay and others who are continuing to do much good for the Church. If Bishop Fellay did endorse salvation by implicit faith - and I'm not convinced he did based on what I quoted about what H.E. said on the Jҽωs - then I don't agree with H.E. on that point. If I could converse with His Excellency, I would respectfully point to St. Alphonsus' teaching. My view is Bishop Fellay would almost certainly agree with St. Alphonsus Liguori, if he doesn't already do so, when respectfully presented.

    I quoted numerous Popes, Saints, Doctors, Catechisms, Councils, Manuals and Theologians that teach exactly what I believe.



    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #11 on: February 18, 2021, 10:46:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Dear Donkath, I must have answered Last Tradhican's question on what I believe like 10 times....


    Thank you for your reply Xaviersem.

    Putting your answer in the positive it becomes:

    Quote
    I believe that without explicit faith no-one will be saved
    - without conversion*
    - without explicit faith in Jesus Christ**
    - perfect contrition***


    Your answer makes it perfectly clear to me that you (yourself- i.e. apart from any people you quote) reject what Archbishop Lefebvre said.

    *     Baptised members of the Catholic Church
    **   The Catholic Church
    ***  The Sacraments (found only in the Catholic Church)

    There is no condemnation of the Archbishop or B. Fellay or anybody in giving your opinion.

    I value your opinion.

    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #12 on: February 18, 2021, 11:10:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you Donkath. God bless you. Archbishop Lefebvre was a blessing to us all. There is a legitimate theological issue on the explicit-implicit faith matter, well known among pre-Vatican II theologians, that really needs to be discussed and resolved in the Church today.

    Msgr. Fenton: "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation."

    The same is taught by Fr. Michael Mueller and St. Alphonsus Liguori: " “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles – the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons – is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’


    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #13 on: February 19, 2021, 12:36:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you Donkath. God bless you. Archbishop Lefebvre was a blessing to us all. There is a legitimate theological issue on the explicit-implicit faith matter, well known among pre-Vatican II theologians, that really needs to be discussed and resolved in the Church today.

    Msgr. Fenton: "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation."

    The same is taught by Fr. Michael Mueller and St. Alphonsus Liguori: " “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles – the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons – is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’

    I have been taught that -
    The time before Christ was a time of prophecy
    Then Christ Himself became Incarnate - the fulfilment of all prophecy.  He is THE PROPHET!  There is no prophet after Him.  Christ is the fulfilment of all prophecy. (The Gifts of Prophecy are another thing - spoken of by St. Paul.)
    With Christ  came the time of the Church and the Fathers/Doctors etc. to define Doctrine.
    These stages present a picture in my mind where they all have one thing in common.  

    That is the heart of man.   And God looks at the heart.

    Christ often commented on the faith in the heart of his apostles, disciples, followers, woman with haemorraging daughter, tax collecter, Centurian, the Rich Man/Lazarus etc. etc.
    Then there are children like Lucy, Jacinto, Marto - child martyrs/saints.  
    They knew their basic Catechism (doctrine).  But it was the infused gift of Faith that brought doctrine to life.  Without the gift of faith doctrine is a dead thing surely.
    Doctrine spells out the bottom line.  From that undiluted launching pad reason lifts a soul into a lifetime of prayer and communion with the Father through Christ (now in His Church.)

    The Liturgical living out of the Faith day by each Catholic from the holiest monk to the lowliest pewsitter like moi are a living symphony of ongoing worship to the Father.
    I guess doctrine  is somewhat like what Moses had to do when, having to make laws for divorce, he was confronted with the hardness of heart of unbelievers(?)
    Too many words dilute the conciseness of core doctrine.  

    Xaviersem, in my own clumsy way I am trying to share that there came a time when yours truly realised that she had to grow up and stay grown-up
    I have to go beyond staying in prep school and reciting my abc over and over.  From child>ABC>words>ideas>sentences>speak/pray/work<to adult
    The Church cannot teach me any more by words.  I have to put into practice what I have learned.  The path is straight - who cares if it is narrow?  I have been supplied with weapons.  
    Now I have to use them.  And this latter is where I fall down badly.   But so did the saints who kept getting up.  And who give strength by their merits.

    Nothing can be added to nor taken away from Mother Church who is all-perfect - like a conceptus where every part of the human person is present until death.  Everything is already there.

    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: XavierSem - Will He Answer the Simple Question?
    « Reply #14 on: February 19, 2021, 03:19:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    There is a legitimate theological issue on the explicit-implicit faith matter, well known among pre-Vatican II theologians, that really needs to be discussed and resolved in the Church today.

    For the sake of clarity, what I was trying to say, in the above post, is that further discussion will add nothing to what has already been taught and set in concrete.   Rather the opposite - because what is being argued is opinions.  Reflection, prayer, penance allowing grace to sanctify us will bring us together in love and action - not endless discussions.   The noise is deafening and ends in a babel (as in tower) of voices.  :)   

    If the faith is not embedded in our hearts by now standing on the solid rock of unchangeable/speculative  doctrine, how are we going to survive while our chief Shepherd and his minions have turned against the flock dismantling doctrine piece by piece?  The generation now spawned have no points of reference left.   

    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."