Quote from: bowler

They start out by first disbelieving that anyone nice (Like Ronald Reagan, Mahatma Gandhi, Flipper etc.) could go to hell ...

Nobody has said this, so there's no need to defend it. It's becoming clear that you are simply an ignoramus and therefore a complete waste of time.

It was either you or stubborn that denied invincible ignorance even exists. For your sake, you'd better hope it does.

I am sure, SJB, that an omnipotent God who can move mountains, raise the dead back to life, and bring the entire Cosmos into existence out of nothing can deliver someone from his/her state of "invincible ignorance.  In fact, the First Vatican Council stated:

To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

P.S.  I am sure, also, that you agree with this.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler

They start out by first disbelieving that anyone nice (Like Ronald Reagan, Mahatma Gandhi, Flipper etc.) could go to hell ...

Nobody has said this, so there's no need to defend it. It's becoming clear that you are simply an ignoramus and therefore a complete waste of time.

It was either you or stubborn that denied invincible ignorance even exists. For your sake, you'd better hope it does.

I am sure, SJB, that an omnipotent God who can move mountains, raise the dead back to life, and bring the entire Cosmos into existence out of nothing can deliver someone from his/her state of "invincible ignorance.  In fact, the First Vatican Council stated:

Quote

To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

P.S.  I am sure, also, that you agree with this.

Well, that's what I've been saying for years now on this very forum. Bowler has misrepresented what I have said pretty consistently and I hope this is due to an ignorance that cannot be overcome.

I showed where the Church uses the term invincible ignorance and it was dismissed. I think many of the types like bowler and stubborn are in dangerous territory.

Quote from: Jehanne

I think that this one deserves its own thread:

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Scheeben

III. Infidels, to whom the faith was never preached, are not left without sufficient grace to secure the salvation of their souls.

Is it possible that we could lead such souls into mortal sin by preaching the Gospel to them?

No BODer on CI will respond to your posting of a few days ago because they really a limited knowledge about the subject of BOD, some basic  old hashed out quotes that they have been parroting for years. Your question forces them to think outside of the box, and they never knew how to think in the first place, they are just parrots.

Aaaak Feeneyite, Aaaak Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, AaaaK BOD is defied,  Aaaak...

 

Loved the parrot analogy.

I have asked this somewhere else, but maybe it might be a good opportunity. From the literature that I have read it seems to me that there is a great cowardice on the part of Fr. Feeney not going to Rome. I think that he pretty much killed his opportunity to make his case to the Holy Office (even if they were all a bunch of heretics). There would have been an easier chance to somehow be able to get to Pius XII by screaming, kicking and yelling off the top of his lungs EENS! EENS!

It is pretty much because of him that EVERYONE who holds to that position after are being anathematized now. How can you defend the man who pretty much killed your only chance of making a convincing doctrinal case... Now we know that it is certainly doctrinally Catholic to hold BOD (it is a permitted tolerated evil opinion worst case scenario), now it seems extremely difficult for a SV'ist to excommunicate the Holy Office during 1949 in a time where the Holy See was unquestionably Catholic. We do more harm to our cause, by holding with the opinion of Fr. Feeney...

Well, that's what I've been saying for years now on this very forum. Bowler has misrepresented what I have said pretty consistently and I hope this is due to an ignorance that cannot be overcome.

I showed where the Church uses the term invincible ignorance and it was dismissed. I think many of the types like bowler and stubborn are in dangerous territory.

That's all you can write, sweeping accusations with no substance, because you have no answers to the inconsistencies that you believe. Now it is invincible ignorance, something that was not taught by any Father, Doctor or Saint. It's funny that you say "I showed where the Church uses the term invincible ignorance and it was dismissed". Since when is using a term equate to infallibility? I asked you to post any Father, Doctor or Saint teaching that the invincible ignorant, since the new dispensation, can be salvific, and of course you respond with sweeping accusations and no quotes. BECAUSE you have not a Father, Doctor or Saint that teaches it. In fact I could post 100's of Father, Doctor or Saint quotes against the very idea. Some kind of "traditionalist" that you are, ignoring ALL of tradition as you do.

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ] <p>
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.  

Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all.  Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says: <p>

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.  I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic.  That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement.  And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition;  a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing.  O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion.  The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers,   not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.<p>

1.   This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

Fr. Feeney didn't go to Rome and this disobedience was the source of his excommunication.  There is something afoot here.  Some key piece of information is missing.  Did Fr. Feeney ever, in one of his writings speak of his reason?  

Any chance he never knew of the request to travel to Rome?

Any chance the request arrived after the deadline to appear?

Montini was behind a lot of this so, really, every benefit of the doubt should go to Fr. Feeney until proven otherwise.  My reason for saying this is upon Fr. Feeney's death, and in the Catholic world at large, the believed reason for Fr. Feeney's excommunication is that he proclaims that those outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.  Well, we all know that EENS is Catholic dogma.

My belief at this time?  Fr. Feeney was the fall guy.  And, if he was disobedient in going to Rome (which is not related to his support for a Catholic dogma) then that was the excuse for the excommunication and now the modernists can act like EENS is no longer dogma.

If this was just about EENS, there would not be any controversy. The problem is the denial of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.  

Look at the rotten fruit that came about from his actions.  Thousands of Catholics have been deceived into denying a de fide proposition of the Church.  This heretical movement has grown far beyond their enclave in Still River, Massachusetts.  The heresy has spread through the country and even outside the borders of the United States, thanks to the internet age.

I personally know many who deny Baptism of Desire, and they are dug in on this.  My hope is that they will recant when a pope comes again and teaches them that they must believe this.

And, if he was disobedient in going to Rome (which is not related to his support for a Catholic dogma) then that was the excuse for the excommunication and now the modernists can act like EENS is no longer dogma

Not just the modernists, but many traditionalists as well.

The Church infallibly condemned those who believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation. If you believe in BOD you believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation, therefore if you believe in BOD you are infallibly condemned by the Church. Of course the Cushingites say that those who believe in the Church's infallible teaching are the heretics.

The Church infallibly teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. If you believe in BOD you believe that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, therefore you deny this dogma. Of course the Cushingites say that those that believe in this dogma are the heretics.

The Church infallibly condemned those who believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation. If you believe in BOD you believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation, therefore if you believe in BOD you are infallibly condemned by the Church. Of course the Cushingites say that those who believe in the Church's infallible teaching are the heretics.

The Church infallibly teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. If you believe in BOD you believe that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, therefore you deny this dogma. Of course the Cushingites say that those that believe in this dogma are the heretics.

Serious question:  If BOD is not Church teaching and is condemned as you say, then what of Pope Pius XII (and his teaching on invincible ignorance)?  Is he also a anti-pope?  If not, why not?