That just shows how imprecise Sanborn can be, as he is likely referring to membership, which should be stated very clearly. Instead, he uses the language the wrecks the dogma.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yes, things like the CMRI article entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church" make my skin curl.  It contradicts WORD FOR WORD a defined dogma of the Church.  That's no different than an article that might be entitled "The Original Sin of Mary".

I remember when Myrna posted that article here. I like Myrna (If you can like someone you have never met except on an internet forum), but I cringed when I read the title of that article.

Quote from: SJB

However, the article doesn't say what the title might imply to someone like you.

I must admit I did not read the article so I do not know if what you say is true. I saw the title was obvious heresy so I did not read it. If the title was not obviously heretical I would have read the article.

Quote from: SJB

So if a priest worded something in a sermon which was unorthodox, should one just walk out? Judge him a heretic? Tell others he is a heretic?

Or just ask him and find out for real?

I think the wording is poor, yet it is hardly a denial of dogma when one is trying to explain something even Pope Pius IX himself elaborates.

I believe it is a direct denial of a dogma and I imagine the priest thought about it for a while before he chose his title and I believe the priest knew the dogma he was denying, which is why I chose not to read his article.

I have never head what I thought was a heresy from an SSPX priest since I have been attending SSPX chapels. If I did hear a heresy from one of them, at first I would ask him about it, and if he insisted on it, I do not know what I would do and I hope it never happens.

Quote from: Ambrose

Why don't you give the same courtesy to the CMRI and ask them if they deny "outside the Church, no salvation?"  

The priest who wrote the article is deceased, but you could with CMRI, as they published the article.  Ask them if you could publish their answer on this forum, so we can finally put this issue to rest.

All I said was that I refused to read an article with a heretical title. Would you read articles with heretical titles? Isn't that a danger to the faith? I never said that the entire CMRI denies EENS. I said that one article by one CMRI priest denies the dogma in the title of one of his articles, which is obvious. Because of this, I refused to read his article. I did not anathematize the CMRI. I would have no problem with going to one of their Masses.

Quote from: SJB

No, it's not obvious, because the article doesn't deny any dogmas. It's merely uses terminology employed in other places in the days when this wasn't an issue.

I did not say the article itself denied the dogma. I said the title did. If you cannot admit that the title is heretical then I don't have anything to say to you because we cannot understand each other. It is like I am looking at an apple and you say "no, it is an orange".

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: SJB

No, it's not obvious, because the article doesn't deny any dogmas. It's merely uses terminology employed in other places in the days when this wasn't an issue.

I did not say the article itself denied the dogma. I said the title did. If you cannot admit that the title is heretical then I don't have anything to say to you because we cannot understand each other. It is like I am looking at an apple and you say "no, it is an orange".

What I said was the terminology wasn't overtly heretical because it was used by some theologians to speak of those who were not actual members of the Church. In other words, outside the membership of the Church. Catechumens are by definition not members, yet they are not necessarily considered outside the Church.