Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jehanne on October 03, 2013, 06:48:35 AM
-
I think that this one deserves its own thread:
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?
-
I think that this one deserves its own thread:
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... (https://charlespaddockzoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_0170x.jpg)
-
0
-
0
-
I think that this one deserves its own thread:
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 only have 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 defide, Aaaak invincible ignorance is defide according to the 1949 Holy Office letter, Aaaak... (https://charlespaddockzoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_0170x.jpg)
-
0
I see you've had to delete your response once again. You seem more than a little out of control.
Anyway, I had already responded to this on the original thread. The question itself has nothing to do with BOD, and it's formulation shows a lack of understanding of the mission of the Church.
-
Well, at least "humor me", SJB, and show me my error and/or misunderstandings on this thread.
P.S. Thanks, Bowler.
-
Well, at least "humor me", SJB, and show me my error and/or misunderstandings on this thread.
P.S. Thanks, Bowler.
If your question had a point or motivation, I assume you think there is some contradiction that will be revealed in the answer. The answer is of course that the Gospel can and must be preached to all men. Ignorance of any kind can't save anybody, it merely can, if invincible, excuse some breach of the law. Implicit in your question, is an assumption of some kind of "salvific" ignorance being disturbed by the preaching of the Gospel, which is nonsense.
-
:heretic:
I think this is a heresy, but I don't know which one. Possibly, it's related to Originism, thee belief that in the very end, Hell will be emptied out and all will be saved. Most of the Old Order Amish believe this, and use it to justify NOT evangelising.
:dancing-banana:
-
Well, at least "humor me", SJB, and show me my error and/or misunderstandings on this thread.
P.S. Thanks, Bowler.
I do not understand what your thread is asking and the fact that bowler seems to agree with you is the reason why I thought you agreed with his views of BOD.
And yet the post you made in the other thread about your POV seems to agree with what I think.
I'm so confused.
-
Well, at least "humor me", SJB, and show me my error and/or misunderstandings on this thread.
P.S. Thanks, Bowler.
If your question had a point or motivation, I assume you think there is some contradiction that will be revealed in the answer. The answer is of course that the Gospel can and must be preached to all men. Ignorance of any kind can't save anybody, it merely can, if invincible, excuse some breach of the law. Implicit in your question, is an assumption of some kind of "salvific" ignorance being disturbed by the preaching of the Gospel, which is nonsense.
Others have made this exact claim, however, that we, as Catholics, should not disturb the "implicit faith" and/or "goodwill" of non-Catholics by sharing the Truth with them, and in doing so, we could cause them to forfeit their "implicit faith."
-
Well, at least "humor me", SJB, and show me my error and/or misunderstandings on this thread.
P.S. Thanks, Bowler.
I do not understand what your thread is asking and the fact that bowler seems to agree with you is the reason why I thought you agreed with his views of BOD.
And yet the post you made in the other thread about your POV seems to agree with what I think.
I'm so confused.
I PM'd Bowler and asked him to give this thread a little "kick". No, I and Bowler don't agree on everything, but I think we are in complete agreement on the essentials.
-
Well, at least "humor me", SJB, and show me my error and/or misunderstandings on this thread.
P.S. Thanks, Bowler.
If your question had a point or motivation, I assume you think there is some contradiction that will be revealed in the answer. The answer is of course that the Gospel can and must be preached to all men. Ignorance of any kind can't save anybody, it merely can, if invincible, excuse some breach of the law. Implicit in your question, is an assumption of some kind of "salvific" ignorance being disturbed by the preaching of the Gospel, which is nonsense.
Aaaak: Ignorance of any kind can't save anybody, it merely can, if invincible, excuse some breach of the law
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Congo_African_Grey_Parrot_-side_of_head2.jpg)
Dear Jehanne,
That response from SJB is the parroted "canned" answer that you'll get from BODers to your question. Like all of their answers to the inconsistencies in their Frankenstein belief system, they don't think about what they are saying, they just parrot it out.
Their "system" is this: They start out by first disbelieving that anyone nice (Like Ronald Reagan, Mahatma Gandhi, Flipper etc.) could go to hell, then they look for whatever confirms their belief, a line from this, a line from that. That is their system.
Here's their canned answer changed in a few words to show how silly they are:
"a bat can't hit homeruns, it merely can, if it is wielded perfectly by a competent athlete"
The answer of course is ridiculous, because anybody knows that bat can't hit homeruns by itself, it is just a piece of wood. AND No one asked that ridiculous question. We asked how does a batter hit a homerun? We did not ask how does a bat hit homeruns. And the answer is that he hits it because he has the athletic prowess to do it, and he does it with a bat.
The answer "Ignorance of any kind can't save anybody, it merely can, if invincible, excuse some breach of the law", is a stupid response from parrots who don't think, they just, well, parrot.
-
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.
-
They start out by first disbelieving that anyone nice (Like Ronald Reagan, Mahatma Gandhi, Flipper etc.) could go to hell ...
....
It was either you or stubborn that denied invincible ignorance even exists.
Actually, it was also ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctors that rejected the idea of salvation in the New Dispensation by ignorance. Ignorance is ignorance.
That's why you can't post any tradition to the effect. Yet another inconsistency in your belief "system". Show me all your quotes about the salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be Catholics, from the Fathers, Doctors, Saints?
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 ser¬vant 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 anyone 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 without 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.111:7 8).
(St. Augustine)
“Just imagine, my dear listeners, the whole secret of salvation being missed in the Gospels, in the teachings of the Apostles, in the protestations of the Saints, in the defined teachings of the Popes, in all the prayers and the liturgies of the Church – and imagine it suddenly coming clear in one or two carelessly worded sentences in an encyclical of Pope Pius IX, on which the Liberals base their teaching that there is salvation outside the Church.” [Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life, Cambridge, MA: St. Benedict Center, 1952, p. 53.
-
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.
-
It was either you or stubborn that denied invincible ignorance even exists. For your sake, you'd better hope it does.
So you seem to be saying that bowler will be damned unless he is in invincible ignorance because he does not believe in BOD.
-
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.
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.
-
It was either you or stubborn that denied invincible ignorance even exists. For your sake, you'd better hope it does.
So you seem to be saying that bowler will be damned unless he is in invincible ignorance because he does not believe in BOD.
No, I'm thinking more about the many misrepresentations made for what appears to be just to argue that his "opinions" are correct.
-
I think that this one deserves its own thread:
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... (https://charlespaddockzoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_0170x.jpg)
:laugh1:
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...
-
Father Feeney was wrong not to go to Rome. It was a free trip!!! Why he did not go is beyond me?! Maybe he was afraid; I don't know. In any case, his Bread of Life came after all of that, a copy of which he sent to Pope Pius XII and to every living Cardinal of the Catholic Church.
But, yes, I agree with you 100%; Father Feeney should have gone to Rome. I would have!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
"Bowler," YOU consistently misrepresent what I have said and what I have very explicitly stated I believe. In that sense, you're either really stupid or just flat dishonest. At this point, it doesn't really matter to me but it should matter to you.
-
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.
-
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.
Well, there goes a BOD parrot. True to form, still repeating the same errors.
What did I tell you Jehanne? Here's my first posting:
No BODer on CI will respond to your posting of a few days ago because they really only have 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 defide, Aaaak invincible ignorance is defide according to the 1949 Holy Office letter, Aaaak... (https://charlespaddockzoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_0170x.jpg)
-
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.
That is the view of a simpleton.
-
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?
-
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?
Actually, it goes back to Pius IX.
-
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?
Actually, it goes back to Pius IX.
ooops. I had a feeling I had the wrong pope. My bad.
-
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.
That is the view of a simpleton.
"The simpleton" has all the dogmas on EENS and baptism and John 3:5 clearly on his "simpleton" side.
While you (in your belief that one can be saved even if they don't have the sacrament or any sacrament, nor desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Christ) have ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints , Athansian Creed, council of Trent .... against you. That's pretty audacious.
-
These BOD threads always go the same route, I good question, a subject, is started, then the BODers change it to what little they know, that they parrot.
This is the tread subject, if you don't have the wherewithal to discuss the matter then stay out, and let another write for you.
I think that this one deserves its own thread:
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?
-
This has already been addressed "bowler." Best you stay in the alley.
-
That is the view of a simpleton.
You say that because you deny both those dogmas, although you might lie to yourself and say you don't deny them when you really do.
-
That is the view of a simpleton.
You say that because you deny both those dogmas, although you might lie to yourself and say you don't deny them when you really do.
No, you're just seeing contradictions where there are none.
-
As you said my argument is that of a simpleton, your argument is that of a liar.
-
As you said my argument is that of a simpleton, your argument is that of a liar.
I really don't care what you think, Matto. You are a simpleton and in way over your head here.
-
We both have many posts on this forum but we have never interacted before. As your introduction to me you insult my intelligence, refuse to answer any of my arguments and then lie to me. Obviously, I am not looking forward to our future interactions.
I am not fazed by your insults. They only lower your own reputation in my eyes and in the eyes of those who see your posts.
-
St. Alphonsus in commenting on Trent said,
"Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts"
It is the underlined portion that your question takes no account of, Jehanne.
This is clearly seen also in Trent itself where desire is used for each and every one of these sacraments, baptism, penance, Eucharist.
It is this that those who do not believe in baptism of desire fail to understand. When a man, under the activity of actual grace and in response to it, truly begins to love God above all things, by that very fact he wills to do all that God has commanded, and that very moment he is translated to sanctifying grace. If he truly loves God, even though he be ignorant of some obligation, when that obligation is made known to him, he will be the first to satisfy it, whether it be professing some article of faith, or confessing some specific fault.
In addition to a truly universal will to observe all the divine precents, explicit faith in the primary articles of faith is necessary by a necessity of means to have supernatural faith, without which supernatural charity is impossible.
-
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.
That is the view of a simpleton.
Okay Matto, the problem is that you accuse those who believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation of not believing the very thing they believe. It's a ridiculous and stupid argument, I don't know how to put it any differently. I feel sorry for you because you've bought into some bad arguments and now speak of them as if they are self-evident.
-
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.
That is the view of a simpleton.
Okay Matto, the problem is that you accuse those who believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation of not believing the very thing they believe. It's a ridiculous and stupid argument, I don't know how to put it any differently. I feel sorry for you because you've bought into some bad arguments and now speak of them as if they are self-evident.
The truth is that you don't believe that the sacraments are necessary, as a matter of fact you don't believe that an explicit desire to be baptized is even necessary, so just by that you deny the very quote in Trent (Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification, Chapter IV) that you use to debate with Matto. As a matter of fact you even believe that people who have no belief in Christ and the Trinity can be saved. Matto is close to the truth, you are on another planet. Yet you don't see that.
Not one Father, Saint, Doctor, nor the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, nor any catechism prior to the 20th century taught what you believe.
Yet you criticize Matto?
-
St. Alphonsus in commenting on Trent said, "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts"
It is the underlined portion that your question takes no account of, Jehanne.
This is clearly seen also in Trent itself where desire is used for each and every one of these sacraments, baptism, penance, Eucharist.
It is this that those who do not believe in baptism of desire fail to understand. When a man, under the activity of actual grace and in response to it, truly begins to love God above all things, by that very fact he wills to do all that God has commanded, and that very moment he is translated to sanctifying grace. If he truly loves God, even though he be ignorant of some obligation, when that obligation is made known to him, he will be the first to satisfy it, whether it be professing some article of faith, or confessing some specific fault.
In addition to a truly universal will to observe all the divine precents, explicit faith in the primary articles of faith is necessary by a necessity of means to have supernatural faith, without which supernatural charity is impossible.
I wonder how many BODers understand what you just wrote? I doubt any do. Do you now limit your belief in BOD to St. Thomas's teaching?
Anyhow, like I said now many times, while you were away:
Can any BODer on CI see that there is not much difference between the people who follow St. Augustine, which you detractingly call Feeneyites, and the teaching of St. Thomas?
St. Thomas says "
God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him
They "are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation",
all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity
While there is a huge difference between St. Aug & St. Thomas versus the School of Salamanca, the teachings taught today and believed by all of you BODers that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved by his belief in a God that is, and that rewards?
That teaching is opposed to St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, the Athanasian Creed, and that is what you people believe.
While the only difference between St. Thomas and St. Augustine (thus the people you call Feeneyites) is that St. Thomas believed that God would send a preacher to teach the faith or internally enlighten the person of the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, while St. Augustine believed the same except that God would also enlighten the person to the fact that he needed to be baptized and have the anyone baptize him.
-
You're impossible, Bowler, you really are.
You left off Hobbledehoy's thread. In case you read that thread (below), even only the last pages, you will see three posters (PereJoseph, SJB, Ambrose) beside myself affirming that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary by means for salvation.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27386&min=155&num=5
I quoted St. Alphonsus above, by the way. He understands what you do not. That in an act of perfect love of God, (yes, one must know explicitly that God is a Trinity in the Christian dispensation), the desire for baptism is necessarily implicit, because he who loves God truly and above all things desires the whole (to obey all the commands) and therefore desires every part of that whole (to obey every specific command, even those he is unaware of, like the command to be baptized). The same is plain in Sacred Scripture, where Christ promises to all who believe in and love Him, without distinguishing catechumen and penitent, that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in that soul will be the result, which means he will be in the state of grace and inside the Church. The same for baptism of blood, where Christ promises and Tradition understands that he who desires to die for confessing Christ, desires to obey Christ truly and therefore desires baptism and is saved.
-
You're impossible, Bowler, you really are.
You left off Hobbledehoy's thread. In case you read that thread (below), even only the last pages, you will see three posters (PereJoseph, SJB, Ambrose) beside myself affirming that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary by means for salvation.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27386&min=155&num=5
I quoted St. Alphonsus above, by the way. He understands what you do not. That in an act of perfect love of God, (yes, one must know explicitly that God is a Trinity in the Christian dispensation), the desire for baptism is necessarily implicit, because he who loves God truly and above all things desires the whole (to obey all the commands) and therefore desires every part of that whole (to obey every specific command, even those he is unaware of, like the command to be baptized). The same is plain in Sacred Scripture, where Christ promises to all who believe in and love Him, without distinguishing catechumen and penitent, that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in that soul will be the result, which means he will be in the state of grace and inside the Church. The same for baptism of blood, where Christ promises and Tradition understands that he who desires to die for confessing Christ, desires to obey Christ truly and therefore desires baptism and is saved.
That does not answer my question. Do you restrict your belief to that teaching of St. Thomas? I know that Ambrose does not, and Hobbledehoy does not either, so what's it matter if they know the teaching?
-
You're impossible, Bowler, you really are.
You left off Hobbledehoy's thread. In case you read that thread (below), even only the last pages, you will see three posters (PereJoseph, SJB, Ambrose) beside myself affirming that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary by means for salvation.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27386&min=155&num=5
I quoted St. Alphonsus above, by the way. He understands what you do not. That in an act of perfect love of God, (yes, one must know explicitly that God is a Trinity in the Christian dispensation), the desire for baptism is necessarily implicit, because he who loves God truly and above all things desires the whole (to obey all the commands) and therefore desires every part of that whole (to obey every specific command, even those he is unaware of, like the command to be baptized). The same is plain in Sacred Scripture, where Christ promises to all who believe in and love Him, without distinguishing catechumen and penitent, that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in that soul will be the result, which means he will be in the state of grace and inside the Church. The same for baptism of blood, where Christ promises and Tradition understands that he who desires to die for confessing Christ, desires to obey Christ truly and therefore desires baptism and is saved.
That does not answer my question. Do you restrict your belief to that teaching of St. Thomas? I know that Ambrose does not, and Hobbledehoy does not either, so what's it matter if they know the teaching?
I think you're on the ropes, bowler. Now you're talking about "restricting your beliefs" to St. Thomas when you don't follow St. Thomas.
-
You're impossible, Bowler, you really are.
You left off Hobbledehoy's thread. In case you read that thread (below), even only the last pages, you will see three posters (PereJoseph, SJB, Ambrose) beside myself affirming that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary by means for salvation.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27386&min=155&num=5
I quoted St. Alphonsus above, by the way. He understands what you do not. That in an act of perfect love of God, (yes, one must know explicitly that God is a Trinity in the Christian dispensation), the desire for baptism is necessarily implicit, because he who loves God truly and above all things desires the whole (to obey all the commands) and therefore desires every part of that whole (to obey every specific command, even those he is unaware of, like the command to be baptized). The same is plain in Sacred Scripture, where Christ promises to all who believe in and love Him, without distinguishing catechumen and penitent, that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in that soul will be the result, which means he will be in the state of grace and inside the Church. The same for baptism of blood, where Christ promises and Tradition understands that he who desires to die for confessing Christ, desires to obey Christ truly and therefore desires baptism and is saved.
That does not answer my question. Do you restrict your belief to that teaching of St. Thomas? I know that Ambrose does not, and Hobbledehoy does not either, so what's it matter if they know the teaching?
I think you're on the ropes, bowler. Now you're talking about "restricting ones beliefs" to St. Thomas when you don't follow St. Thomas.
Neither do you, for if you did, I would respect your position.
-
St. Alphonsus in commenting on Trent said, "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts"
It is the underlined portion that your question takes no account of, Jehanne.
This is clearly seen also in Trent itself where desire is used for each and every one of these sacraments, baptism, penance, Eucharist.
It is this that those who do not believe in baptism of desire fail to understand. When a man, under the activity of actual grace and in response to it, truly begins to love God above all things, by that very fact he wills to do all that God has commanded, and that very moment he is translated to sanctifying grace. If he truly loves God, even though he be ignorant of some obligation, when that obligation is made known to him, he will be the first to satisfy it, whether it be professing some article of faith, or confessing some specific fault.
In addition to a truly universal will to observe all the divine precents, explicit faith in the primary articles of faith is necessary by a necessity of means to have supernatural faith, without which supernatural charity is impossible.
That does not answer Jehanne's question at all.
I think that this one deserves its own thread:
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?
-
You're impossible, Bowler, you really are.
You left off Hobbledehoy's thread. In case you read that thread (below), even only the last pages, you will see three posters (PereJoseph, SJB, Ambrose) beside myself affirming that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary by means for salvation.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27386&min=155&num=5
I quoted St. Alphonsus above, by the way. He understands what you do not. That in an act of perfect love of God, (yes, one must know explicitly that God is a Trinity in the Christian dispensation), the desire for baptism is necessarily implicit, because he who loves God truly and above all things desires the whole (to obey all the commands) and therefore desires every part of that whole (to obey every specific command, even those he is unaware of, like the command to be baptized). The same is plain in Sacred Scripture, where Christ promises to all who believe in and love Him, without distinguishing catechumen and penitent, that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in that soul will be the result, which means he will be in the state of grace and inside the Church. The same for baptism of blood, where Christ promises and Tradition understands that he who desires to die for confessing Christ, desires to obey Christ truly and therefore desires baptism and is saved.
That does not answer my question. Do you restrict your belief to that teaching of St. Thomas? I know that Ambrose does not, and Hobbledehoy does not either, so what's it matter if they know the teaching?
I think you're on the ropes, bowler. Now you're talking about "restricting ones beliefs" to St. Thomas when you don't follow St. Thomas.
Neither do you, for if you did, I would respect your position.
I do follow St. Thomas, and you just admitted you do not. You only follow yourself bowler, like a true liberal Catholic as described in the book, Liberalism is a Sin.
-
I do follow St. Thomas, and you just admitted you do not. You only follow yourself bowler, like a true liberal Catholic as described in the book, Liberalism is a Sin.
This thread is not about you and I. Take your discussion to another thread.
The difference between you and I is that I don’t play games with my head. You say you follow St. Thomas, yet you won’t say that you restrict your BOD belief to St. Thomas’s teaching. You are just playing games with yourself, for you say you believe St. Thomas, but yet you also reject St. Thomas in your belief that one can be saved although they have no belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. If I am wrong in my accessment then go to the thread that I made specifically asking the question that if you restrict your BOD belief to St. Thomas’s teaching and reject the more liberal teaching of Garrigou-Lagrange
Your response is analogous to me saying that I follow St. Thomas, and I also believe the person that is enlightened by God about the Trinity and the Incarnation would also be enlightened that he needs to be baptized. I could say that, but I don't play games with myself.
-
... in your belief that one can be saved although they have no belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Your are either blind or dishonest. I've never said this ... here nor anywhere else. I've said the opposite, and many times.
Do you want to "win" so bad that you're willing to lie about what others believe to "make your point?"
-
This thread is not about you and I. Take your discussion to another thread.
I'll make my point anywhere I choose. You are hiding what you really believe, that explicit desire isn't sufficient even for Catechumens.