Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I  (Read 1415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2126
  • Reputation: +1362/-80
  • Gender: Male
BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
« on: March 24, 2014, 11:41:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some followers of Fr. Feeney perhaps do not know that there already existed a practically universal consensus about the salvific efficacy of BOD among the Pope and Bishops of the first Vatican Council.

    A schema on the Church had been proposed and found general acceptance. For various reasons, later, however this was changed into a draft focusing on the Papacy and defining the issue of Papal infallibility. This is recorded by many Catholic writers. The below is from Mansi 51, 541-542 and 570-71.

    Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council
    No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

    In the section that speaks of ‘invincible ignorance,’ it is pointed out that it is possible that a person who does not belong to the visible and external communion of the church can still obtain justification and eternal life… Some thought that this should be expressed more clearly, and suggested saying that no one obtained justifica­tion or eternal life who in no way belonged to the church. By this they meant one who belonged neither to the body of the church nor to its soul, and thus who do not belong to the church at all, either in re or in voto.”

    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17394
    • Reputation: +9717/-4271
    • Gender: Male
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #1 on: March 24, 2014, 12:32:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the Holy Spirit prevented this from being taught to the Church.

    Again, however, like Quanto Conficiamur, the first part would be heretical if understood your way.  In fact it's simply stating that God will not deny salvation to those who do not place obstacles in the way of His grace, not that they can be saved outside the Church, along the lines of what St. Thomas wrote (the second paragraph commentary from some unknown source -- Mansi? -- notwithstanding)

    Quote
    who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power


    This does not mean sanctifying grace or salvation, but the prevenient graces needed to bring them to the Church.

    It would be heretical if understood your way because it would be Pelagianism.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #2 on: March 24, 2014, 12:44:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is my understanding that the only thing that was actually defined and revealed as dogma in that council was the Pope's infallibility. Vatican I was never really finished, it ended shortly after, by the intervention of the Holy Ghost . I wonder why was that? Perhaps the Holy Ghost prevented it because He foresaw dangerous modern errors already spreading :scratchchin:

    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Luker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 507
    • Reputation: +639/-0
    • Gender: Male
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #3 on: March 24, 2014, 07:32:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    It is my understanding that the only thing that was actually defined and revealed as dogma in that council was the Pope's infallibility. Vatican I was never really finished, it ended shortly after, by the intervention of the Holy Ghost . I wonder why was that? Perhaps the Holy Ghost prevented it because He foresaw dangerous modern errors already spreading :scratchchin:



    Wasn't the main reason that the Vatican council was discontinued the start of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870?
    Pray the Holy Rosary every day!!

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #4 on: March 24, 2014, 07:38:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Yes, the Holy Spirit prevented this from being taught to the Church.

    Again, however, like Quanto Conficiamur, the first part would be heretical if understood your way.  In fact it's simply stating that God will not deny salvation to those who do not place obstacles in the way of His grace, not that they can be saved outside the Church, along the lines of what St. Thomas wrote (the second paragraph commentary from some unknown source -- Mansi? -- notwithstanding)

    Quote
    who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power


    This does not mean sanctifying grace or salvation, but the prevenient graces needed to bring them to the Church.

    It would be heretical if understood your way because it would be Pelagianism.


    This is just the final proof that no Catholic understood this the way you do.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +12/-1
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #5 on: March 24, 2014, 07:52:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Some followers of Fr. Feeney perhaps do not know that there already existed a practically universal consensus about the salvific efficacy of BOD among the Pope and Bishops of the first Vatican Council.

    A schema on the Church had been proposed and found general acceptance. For various reasons, later, however this was changed into a draft focusing on the Papacy and defining the issue of Papal infallibility. This is recorded by many Catholic writers. The below is from Mansi 51, 541-542 and 570-71.

    Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council
    No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

    In the section that speaks of ‘invincible ignorance,’ it is pointed out that it is possible that a person who does not belong to the visible and external communion of the church can still obtain justification and eternal life… Some thought that this should be expressed more clearly, and suggested saying that no one obtained justifica­tion or eternal life who in no way belonged to the church. By this they meant one who belonged neither to the body of the church nor to its soul, and thus who do not belong to the church at all, either in re or in voto.”



    I was aware of it. It should tell you something that the Holy Ghost rejected it, like He always has, that is why you have to resort to posting "near dogmas" on BOD like this one. But no, you don't see that.

    But what does it matter anyway, you reject all the clear dogmas on EENS and the sacrament of baptism. Here's one that is clear, and you reject it:

    Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: Nishant
    I believe that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means. If you'd actually read the quote from St. Alphonsus and others I provided, you'd see that.


    It is opposed to the dogmatic decree of Florence, nothing else need be added. You are denying clear dogma. You are a denier of dogma. If this dogma does not mean what it says, then your quote from theologians do not mean anything, in fact nothing means anything anymore.


    Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: bowler
    Quote from: bowler


    It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD,  that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. You are denying clear dogma.


    The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ


    DOGMA:

     
    Quote
    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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”


    If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

    If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.




    BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)

    BODers deny Creeds

     Athanasian Creed
    1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
    2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
    3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
    4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
    5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
    6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
    7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
    8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
    9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
    10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
    11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
    12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
    13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
    14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
    15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
    16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
    17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
    18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
    19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
    20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
    21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
    22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
    23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
    24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
    25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
    26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
    27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
    28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
    29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
    31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
    32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
    33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
    34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
    35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
    36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
    37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
    38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
    39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
    40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
    41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
    42. and shall give account of their own works.
    43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
    44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

    BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:

    St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk 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, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

    Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)





    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +12/-1
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #6 on: March 24, 2014, 08:04:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Some followers of Fr. Feeney perhaps do not know that there already existed a practically universal consensus about the salvific efficacy of BOD among the Pope and Bishops of the first Vatican Council.

    A schema on the Church had been proposed and found general acceptance. For various reasons, later, however this was changed into a draft focusing on the Papacy and defining the issue of Papal infallibility. This is recorded by many Catholic writers. The below is from Mansi 51, 541-542 and 570-71.

    Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council
    No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

    In the section that speaks of ‘invincible ignorance,’ it is pointed out that it is possible that a person who does not belong to the visible and external communion of the church can still obtain justification and eternal life… Some thought that this should be expressed more clearly, and suggested saying that no one obtained justifica­tion or eternal life who in no way belonged to the church. By this they meant one who belonged neither to the body of the church nor to its soul, and thus who do not belong to the church at all, either in re or in voto.”



    I was aware of it. It should tell you something that the Holy Ghost rejected it, like He always has, that is why you have to resort to posting "near dogmas" on BOD like this one. But no, you don't see that. Here's another instance even more obvious of the Holy Ghost rejecting BOD:

    Quote from: bowler
    From Book: Is Feeneyism Catholic by Fr. Laisney SSPX

    On page 47, Fr. Laisney quotes the dogmatic definition from the Council of
    Florence:
    “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can
    often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that Holy Baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”


    A number of things are significant about Fr. Laisney’s treatment of this dogmatic definition. First is the fact that Fr. Laisney makes it a special point to note that Florence only mentioned children in this passage. He concludes that while there is no other remedy for children other than the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore there is another remedy for original sin for adults (baptism of desire). He tries to bolster this position by pointing
    out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the document quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.

    The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.


    This fact should make Fr. Laisney think. Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to incorporate the passage from St. Thomas on infants, and not his teaching in the very next paragraph on baptism of desire? Why didn’t God allow the Council to simply continue with the quotation only one more short paragraph, which would have made it clear once and for all that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church?  

    It’s obvious that the Holy Ghost wanted St. Thomas’s teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism being the only remedy for infants in the
    Council, and that He did not want St. Thomas’s teaching that baptism of desire is another remedy for adults in the Council. This is why the one paragraph appears and the other does not.

    So-called Baptism of desire in all of it's variants mentioned in the 1949 letter(explicit baptism of desire, implicit baptism of desire, Implicit faith for the invincible ignorant) has never once been defined in any dogmatic decree.






    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17394
    • Reputation: +9717/-4271
    • Gender: Male
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #7 on: March 24, 2014, 08:20:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Very interesting observation about the Council of Florence, bowler.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17394
    • Reputation: +9717/-4271
    • Gender: Male
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #8 on: March 24, 2014, 08:32:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council
    No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...


    See my emphasis above.  Again it's a paraphrase of St. Thomas who doesn't say such as these will be saved, just they will not be punished on account of the sin of infidelity but [undoubtedly] will have not receive the grace of faith due to other sins.  I'll bet too that the "so that such a one can obtain" part uses a subjunctive verb in Latin (typically found after "so that"), and the translation should really read "so that such a one might obtain".

    Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit prevented this "culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the Church" nonsense from being defined.  While this is certainly true, the opposite might be inferred, namely that anyone who dies "in an inculpable state of separation ..." CAN obtain this.  So this was clearly inserted as a potential timebomb by someone to be exploited later.  Yet the Holy Spirit intervened, because that would be an implied Pelagianism.

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +602/-61
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #9 on: March 24, 2014, 09:44:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    by the intervention of the Holy Ghost


    Or, the Vatican Council was simply interrupted by Franco-Prussian war.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +602/-61
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #10 on: March 24, 2014, 10:57:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    ...from some unknown source -- Mansi?


    This is just the final proof that no Catholic understood this the way you do.


    reference https://archive.org/details/Mansi51
    Omnes pro Christo


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #11 on: March 25, 2014, 01:05:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    Quote from: Cantarella
    by the intervention of the Holy Ghost


    Or, the Vatican Council was simply interrupted by Franco-Prussian war.


    I am on the opinion that in fact God does intervene in all human's affairs for the sake of the elect and not a hair moves without Him allowing it.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #12 on: March 25, 2014, 01:24:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Nishant
    Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council
    No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...


    See my emphasis above.  Again it's a paraphrase of St. Thomas who doesn't say such as these will be saved, just they will not be punished on account of the sin of infidelity but [undoubtedly] will have not receive the grace of faith due to other sins.  I'll bet too that the "so that such a one can obtain" part uses a subjunctive verb in Latin (typically found after "so that"), and the translation should really read "so that such a one might obtain".

    Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit prevented this "culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the Church" nonsense from being defined.  While this is certainly true, the opposite might be inferred, namely that anyone who dies "in an inculpable state of separation ..." CAN obtain this.  So this was clearly inserted as a potential timebomb by someone to be exploited later.  Yet the Holy Spirit intervened, because that would be an implied Pelagianism.


    These invincible ignorants are not guilty of heresy or infidelity, only original and actual sins. This is what this says. It is important to make a clear distinction between the Hell torments for actual sins, and the mere absence of God which is the result of Original Sin. People that have a difficulty understanding God's justice is usually because they do not know about the extent of Original sin and the different levels of Hell. The invincible ignorant is not saved on account of original sin, at the very least.

    St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without Baptism and the Faith.

    The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecumenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin, which only Baptism may remit, suffices for damnation.

    The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. […] They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Florence)
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +602/-61
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #13 on: March 25, 2014, 01:42:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    Quote from: Cantarella
    by the intervention of the Holy Ghost


    Or, the Vatican Council was simply interrupted by Franco-Prussian war.


    I am on the opinion that in fact God does intervene in all human's affairs for the sake of the elect and not a hair moves without Him allowing it.


    I have no objection to your stated opinion here, but your assertion that God intervening to stop the Vatican Council is nothing but speculation on your part.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17394
    • Reputation: +9717/-4271
    • Gender: Male
    BOD, Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I
    « Reply #14 on: March 25, 2014, 05:49:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    Quote from: Cantarella
    by the intervention of the Holy Ghost


    Or, the Vatican Council was simply interrupted by Franco-Prussian war.


    I am on the opinion that in fact God does intervene in all human's affairs for the sake of the elect and not a hair moves without Him allowing it.


    I have no objection to your stated opinion here, but your assertion that God intervening to stop the Vatican Council is nothing but speculation on your part.


    Regardless of what you think, at the end of the day, Vatican I did NOT teach the passage you cited, so please stop citing it as if it had the implicit authority of Vatican I.  As I pointed out, there's no direct error in the passage, just a Pelagian "implication" in the one sentence.

    To keep asserting as you do that those who do not commit culpable sin against the faith can be saved is nothing short of Pelagianism.  Invincible ignorance can never be salvific, merely exculpatory.  To say that it's salvific is nothing short of Pelagianism.  So to make this passage prove BoD, you have to interpret it in a Pelagian manner.  You're trying to imply that Original Sin alone is not enough to prevent someone from being saved.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16