Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Stubborn on January 02, 2014, 06:05:12 AM
-
From 2004, 2 hour video of Bishop Sanborn debating with a Novus Ordo professor - interesting to note that Dr. Robert Fastiggi is affiliated with Michael Voris. Any way, I have not watched the video but plan to throughout the day - or perhaps the next few days or so.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/v2debate.htm
-
Won't be able to watch the whole thing this morning, but I've started it and Sanborn is very well prepared. Look forward to watching the whole thing.
-
I'll watch when I have a chance, but Bishop Sanborn doesn't have a leg to stand on, since his ecclesiology is the same as that of Vatican II.
Bishop Sanborn has stated that Jews and pagans can be saved.
Consequently, they're formally part of the Church while being materially separated, separated brethren if you will.
Consequently, the notion of a formally united Church seeking material unity (i.e. materially divided) is the Sanborn=Vatican II ecclesiology (the subsistit ecclesiology whereby the formal+material core "subsists in" the Catholic Church, with there being all the while pieces that, while formally united, are yet in varying degrees of material separation from it).
-
30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.
-
At one point Sanborn seemed as if he was going to have an emotional breakdown and start crying, you'll see.
The part where he starts asking "What was wrong with the way things were before, with the schools with the theology" and so on.
It was a pitiful performance by Sanborn really. He didn't even mention that subsistit in came from a Protestant!
I don't understand how can novusordowatch present this video as some kind of masterclass refutation and like something that will reassure all the ones on the fence.
Why wasn't it made public all these years? Maybe Sanborn felt ashamed?
-
Fastiggi does an excellent job.
If I believed in (extended) BoD, then I would have to reject the idea that Vatican II contains any substantial error.
-
The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.
What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.
If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.
-
He's clearly flustered in the first part of his rebuttal to Fastiggi.
One hour in and the only question Fastiggi hasn't addressed is the V2 notion of the Church of Christ not being equal to the Catholic Church.
Bishp Sanborn is all over the map and making zero sense in his rebuttal.
-
The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.
What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.
If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.
I bet that the key there is in the word used by Gregory VII for "worship". I don't recall the Latin since I'm just listening casually while doing other things.
-
The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.
What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.
If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.
I bet that the key there is in the word used by Gregory VII for "worship". I don't recall the Latin since I'm just listening casually while doing other things.
Nam omnipotens Deus, qui omnes homines vult salvos facere, et neminem perire, nihil est quod in nobis magis approbet quam ut homo post dilectionem suam hominem diligat, et quod sibi non vult fieri, alii non faciat.
Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam caeteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem saeculorum et gubernatorem hujus mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur.
-
30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.
Maybe it's the wrong question. The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.
This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.
-
The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.
What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.
If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.
I bet that the key there is in the word used by Gregory VII for "worship". I don't recall the Latin since I'm just listening casually while doing other things.
Nam omnipotens Deus, qui omnes homines vult salvos facere, et neminem perire, nihil est quod in nobis magis approbet quam ut homo post dilectionem suam hominem diligat, et quod sibi non vult fieri, alii non faciat.
Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam caeteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem saeculorum et gubernatorem hujus mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur.
Thank you.
OK, praise and venerate AS Creator of the world. This is quite alright. What he's saying is the NATURAL praise and veneration God in a natural state (i.e. in His condition as Creator, which can be known through natural reason) ... as opposed to revealed supernatural state of God.
-
30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.
Maybe it's the wrong question. The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.
This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.
Fastiggi cites Vatican II and explains this very well. It's not that the schismatic churches save but, rather, that the Holy Spirit uses ELEMENTS of the Church Herself to sanctify outside her visible boundaries. That clearly does not undermine the Church as instrumental cause of salvation. It's the same ecclesiology that Traditional Catholic who believe in extended BoD have, including Bishop Sanborn. So, for instance, the Church's Sacred Scriptures might cause a Protestant to have supernatural faith. So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism conferred by a schismatic on an infant who dies, brings salvation.
Fastiggi explains V2 "subsistit" ecclesiology is all about people who are saved being outside the visible boundaries on the Church.
He's saying the same thing that I have said over and over and over on this board. If I believed in extended BoD, I would have to concede that there's no substantial error in Vatican II.
-
30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.
Maybe it's the wrong question. The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.
This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.
Fastiggi cites Vatican II and explains this very well. It's not that the schismatic churches save but, rather, that the Holy Spirit uses ELEMENTS of the Church Herself to sanctify outside her visible boundaries. That clearly does not undermine the Church as instrumental cause of salvation. It's the same ecclesiology that Traditional Catholic who believe in extended BoD have, including Bishop Sanborn. So, for instance, the Church's Sacred Scriptures might cause a Protestant to have supernatural faith. So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism conferred by a schismatic on an infant who dies, brings salvation.
Fastiggi explains V2 "subsistit" ecclesiology is all about people who are saved being outside the visible boundaries on the Church.
He's saying the same thing that I have said over and over and over on this board. If I believed in extended BoD, I would have to concede that there's no substantial error in Vatican II.
No, it's a denial of the Church as a necessity of means when one adopts a stance that also eliminates conversion as a necessary goal. That cannot be explained away.
So, for instance, the Church's Sacred Scriptures might cause a Protestant to have supernatural faith. So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism conferred by a schismatic on an infant who dies, brings salvation.
Why then is the Sacrament valid when performed by anybody available to perform the ritual? Do you not believe this? Baptism can only be received once and it can be administered by any adult whatsoever, even a heretic, even a pagan, so long as he does what the Church intends.
-
I'm up to 1:12:00 where the audience is about to ask questions and it looks like the NO Professor learned his NO lessons well, he just doesn't see what is right in front of him.
He keeps saying things like: "V2 sites the Council of Florence and Trent and etc. - more traditional than any other council over cited etc." but he flat out don't get that V2 said one thing and did something completely contrary.
How is it that someone so intelligent can be so blind? - I think people who go through the NO education / indoctrination process are brainwashed, and brainwashed permanently. He is the third NOer I knew who is an educated NOer - nothing worse than an educated NOer - impossible to get through to those folks.
And I agree with: 30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.
-
Thank you.
OK, praise and venerate AS Creator of the world. This is quite alright. What he's saying is the NATURAL praise and veneration God in a natural state (i.e. in His condition as Creator, which can be known through natural reason) ... as opposed to revealed supernatural state of God.
I don't know if this is accurate or if its consistent with the latin there but supposedly this is what Pope Gregory VII said:
God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4) and none to perish is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God men love other men, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves (cf. Mt. 7.14). We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For as the apostle says: "He is our peace who has made us both one." (Eph. 2.14) Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtues... God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth.
That last sentence is troubling as well.
-
No, it's a denial of the Church as a necessity of means when one adopts a stance that also eliminates conversion as a necessary goal. That cannot be explained away.
But he doesn't, and he demonstrates that neither does Vatican II per se.
Are you even watching the video?
-
How is it that someone so intelligent can be so blind? - I think people who go through the NO education / indoctrination process are brainwashed, and brainwashed permanently. He is the third NOer I knew who is an educated NOer - nothing worse than an educated NOer - impossible to get through to those folks.
But Fastiggi is the one who's internally consistent. Fastiggi and Sanborn both believe that non-Catholics can be saved. Fastiggi shows how Vatican II ecclesiology simply follows from that.
Just as I have been saying, the CRUX of Traditional Catholicism is the PREMISE, i.e. whether there's extended BoD. If there's extended BoD, then Vatican II follows logically therefrom.
It also makes Traditional Catholics look bad when not only Bishop Sanborn but numerous members of the audience start laughing at Fastiggi in a very derisive tone -- a very poor showing that makes Traditional Catholics look really bad.
-
I don't know if this is accurate or if its consistent with the latin there but supposedly this is what Pope Gregory VII said:
...
That last sentence is troubling as well.
I find it OK. Pope Gregory VII is clearly distinguishing between the natural and the supernatural; that English "worship" is a mistranslation of the word "venerate" or "revere".
-
It also makes Traditional Catholics look bad when not only Bishop Sanborn but numerous members of the audience start laughing at Fastiggi in a very derisive tone -- a very poor showing that makes Traditional Catholics look really bad.
Well, what he said was truly outrageous.
-
Thank you.
OK, praise and venerate AS Creator of the world. This is quite alright. What he's saying is the NATURAL praise and veneration God in a natural state (i.e. in His condition as Creator, which can be known through natural reason) ... as opposed to revealed supernatural state of God.
I don't know if this is accurate or if its consistent with the latin there but supposedly this is what Pope Gregory VII said:
God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4) and none to perish is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God men love other men, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves (cf. Mt. 7.14). We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For as the apostle says: "He is our peace who has made us both one." (Eph. 2.14) Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtues... God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth.
That last sentence is troubling as well.
First, it is a fallible letter from a pope
Second, the translation or the letter itself can be played with or a total forgery
Third, it is the only quote they ever come up with.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
[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:
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.
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
-
It also makes Traditional Catholics look bad when not only Bishop Sanborn but numerous members of the audience start laughing at Fastiggi in a very derisive tone -- a very poor showing that makes Traditional Catholics look really bad.
Well, what he said was truly outrageous.
While Fastiggi was quite mistaken on that particular point, the reaction was still wrong.
What SOMEONE should have pointed out to him is that the one cited example of liturgical abuse is HARDLY an aberration but seems to be broadly tolerated by the Vatican, if not actively encouraged.
Bishop Sanborn won a few of the peripheral points, but he clearly lost the debate on whether Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical. Fastiggi won hands down. He demonstrates how it flows logically from extended BoD theology.
Again, if the 90% of those on this forum who believe in extended BoD could convince me that extended BoD exists, then I would have to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error, albeit inopportune, and would have to take more of an FSSP type of position, or else I would become aligned more with one of the Eastern Rites.
-
Thank you.
OK, praise and venerate AS Creator of the world. This is quite alright. What he's saying is the NATURAL praise and veneration God in a natural state (i.e. in His condition as Creator, which can be known through natural reason) ... as opposed to revealed supernatural state of God.
I don't know if this is accurate or if its consistent with the latin there but supposedly this is what Pope Gregory VII said:
God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4) and none to perish is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God men love other men, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves (cf. Mt. 7.14). We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For as the apostle says: "He is our peace who has made us both one." (Eph. 2.14) Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtues... God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth.
That last sentence is troubling as well.
First, it is a fallible letter from a pope
Second, the translation or the letter itself can be played with or a total forgery
Third, it is the only quote they ever come up with.
How to Distinguish the Truth
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
[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:
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.
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
-
No, it's a denial of the Church as a necessity of means when one adopts a stance that also eliminates conversion as a necessary goal. That cannot be explained away.
But he doesn't, and he demonstrates that neither does Vatican II per se.
Are you even watching the video?
No, I'm not. It's very old news and it doesn't matter anyway. The fact is that those who implemented V2 have acted as if the Church was no longer the necessary means. That';s what they believe and it can't be defended by pointing to a Council whose language is that of ambiguity and double-meanings.
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.
The temptation was directed to Eve as the weaker party, and against the law of probation, as the most momentous. The tempter begins with a question of double meaning : Is there such a commandment, and why should it be given ? (Gen. iii. 1), and goes on denying the punishment threatened by God, and promising likeness to gods as a reward for the evil deed. Almost every word of the devil's speech is ambiguous, admitting of a true and of a false interpretation, a circuмstance entirely in keeping with the character of the tempter.
Pointing to the true interpretation isn't a valid defense.
-
Fastiggi won hands down. He demonstrates how it flows logically from extended BoD theology.
Again, if the 90% of those on this forum who believe in extended BoD could convince me that extended BoD exists, then I would have to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error, albeit inopportune, and would have to take more of an FSSP type of position,
That's the Achilles heal of the "traditionalists". They swallowed the herd of camels already of EENS.
If the progressivists had celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin with all the vestments and old churches, not a one would be complaining about Vatican II today. It is all about feelings.
-
If the progressivists had celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin with all the vestments and old churches, not a one would be complaining about Vatican II today. It is all about feelings.
I hope this is not true, although I remember that Bishop Fellay said that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted this in one of his more scandalous moments.
-
If the progressivists had celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin with all the vestments and old churches, not a one would be complaining about Vatican II today. It is all about feelings.
I hope this is not true, although I remember that Bishop Fellay said that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted this in one of his more scandalous moments.
REPLY OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL
In response to a query made by Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), Archbishop Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, made these comments about the immediate and disastrous effects of the Second Vatican Council.
Rome
20 December 1966
Your Eminence,
Your letter of July 24, concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.
Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervor and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.
It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty in grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere. The seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.
I believe it my duty to put before you fully and clearly what is evident from my conversations with numerous bishops, priests and laymen in Europe and in Africa and which emerges also from what I have read in English and French territories.
I would willingly follow the order of the truths listed in your letter, but I venture to say that the present evil appears to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church's institutions, religious foundations, seminaries, Catholic schools—in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church. It is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries, especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.
To the measure in which the Church has opposed these ideas, which run counter to sound philosophy and theology, she has made progress. On the other hand, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an alignment of the Church with civil law with the attendant danger of enslaving her to civil society.
Moreover, every time that groups of Catholics have allowed themselves to be attracted by these myths, the Popes have courageously called them to order, enlightening, and if necessary condemning them. Catholic Liberalism was condemned by Pope Pius IX, Modernism by Pope Leo XIII, the Sillon Movement by Pope St. Pius X, Communism by Pope Pius XI and Neo-Modernism by Pope Pius XII.
Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew firm and spread; conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed; states accepted a more Catholic legislation.
Groups of religious imbued with these false ideas, however, succeeded in infiltrating them into Catholic Action and into the seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of the bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman authorities. Soon it would be among such priests that the bishops would be chosen. This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church.
Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.
Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world (if those pre-conciliar docuмents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today's problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:
In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.
The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.
The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:
doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,
doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,
doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.
Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sɛҳuąƖity, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christian upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.
Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem, so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honour.
Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecuмenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.
Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.
The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.
Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the faith: let him appoint them to the important dioceses. Let him by docuмents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.
Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behoves every good pastor to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and to restore them to the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Christian families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees and letters to the bishops.
Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God's glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.
May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church. May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.
Marcel Lefebvre,
Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.
-
Fastiggi won hands down. He demonstrates how it flows logically from extended BoD theology.
Again, if the 90% of those on this forum who believe in extended BoD could convince me that extended BoD exists, then I would have to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error, albeit inopportune, and would have to take more of an FSSP type of position,
That's the Achilles heal of the "traditionalists". They swallowed the herd of camels already of EENS.
If the progressivists had celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin with all the vestments and old churches, not a one would be complaining about Vatican II today. It is all about feelings.
I believe +Sanborn, himself, made a similar statement in an interview with Stephen Heiner, saying that if the institutional church remained as it was till as late as 1968 - before full implementation of NO mass and orders - he wouldn't have left, but grudgingly stayed within the structures of the Conciliar Church.
-
Fastiggi won hands down. He demonstrates how it flows logically from extended BoD theology.
Again, if the 90% of those on this forum who believe in extended BoD could convince me that extended BoD exists, then I would have to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error, albeit inopportune, and would have to take more of an FSSP type of position,
That's the Achilles heal of the "traditionalists". They swallowed the herd of camels already of EENS.
If the progressivists had celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin with all the vestments and old churches, not a one would be complaining about Vatican II today. It is all about feelings.
You're 100% on the mark, bowler. That's exactly it. In fact, I would have stayed there also. It wasn't until an egregiously heretical Novus Ordo presider showed up at my childhood NO parish that my eyes began to open.
-
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.
I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.
-
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.
I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.
Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.
Anyway, I think you and Fastiggi are wrong to demand that Catholics prove heresy as a condition for avoiding obvious unorthodoxy.
-
Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.
Please be consistent and state your approved theologian who agrees with what you are saying.
-
Bishop Sanborn won a few of the peripheral points, but he clearly lost the debate on whether Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical.
Would you say that it's heretical?
-
Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.
Please be consistent and state your approved theologian who agrees with what you are saying.
This is merely the statement of a fact.
-
I read somewhere that Ratzinger's bunch who took over the council was asked to define what the bunch was saying suggesting and such. The bunch said nothing. The observers stated that "if that radical bunch were to define, they would show their heresy. Defining is of the utmost importance. The way I see it, is vatican was never finished. The true church was afraid, that if a council was opened, that the take over would take place. I am of the opinion that VAT II holds nothing of importance, for things were suggested, terminology was modernism. So, it was a dog and pony show with no definites. But to the enemies, it was a show to the world, that the church that Christ found was indeed, infiltrated enough for take over. As my grandmother said when vat. II came in, "There goes the church!" My family was well educated by our priest in the family of the Precious Blood Society, during 1907-1944. I am sure that they were told that the crash was coming. And it did!
-
Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.
Please be consistent and state your approved theologian who agrees with what you are saying.
This is merely the statement of a fact.
By your own authority - tisk tisk!
-
The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.
This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.
So you say.
-
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.
I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.
Bowler wrote to Nishant: All you are saying is that the theological opinion of Heroin BOD is permitted today. That's no news. That it is permitted does not make it the truth, nor lessen its destruction upon the Church. Sound familiar? Just like Vatican II, (which you defend in the same exact way) they are identical.
Words have no defined final meaning to the Heroin BODers, as well as Progressivists, therefore, they haven't decided exactly what Vatican II is saying , in now almost 50 years.
-
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.
I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.
Bowler wrote to Nishant: All you are saying is that the theological opinion of Heroin BOD is permitted today. That's no news. That it is permitted does not make it the truth, nor lessen its destruction upon the Church. Sound familiar? Just like Vatican II, (which you defend in the same exact way) they are identical.
Words have no defined final meaning to the Heroin BODers, as well as Progressivists, therefore, they haven't decided exactly what Vatican II is saying , in now almost 50 years.
You and Fastiggi are not such strange bedfellows, I see.
-
In +Sanborn's opening statements, he wholeheartedly affirms the dogma as well as anyone I've ever heard, but then by about 3:28, he is done echoing Church teaching as he concludes his opening affirmation with:
"...if you are outside it [the Church] you are a withered branch, as one pope said, that you have no possibility of salvation and, so forth."
In the next breath, at 3:34, he completely blows it when he begins:
"Now, here we must make the distinction that if you are outside the Church through no fault of your own, and you belong to the Church by desire - that is where you want to be part of it but for some reason, through no fault of your own you cannot become a part of it but you want to become a part of it - that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that."
This certainly applies:
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it....
Now......let's see....... the NOer said at least a few times that SVs would go to hell because of their schism, ergo they are outside the church.
Therefore, the SVist is without a doubt, outside the church while the NOer is without a doubt, *not* outside the church.
Meanwhile, +Sanborn is arguing the exact opposite about the NOers accusing them of being willfully guilty of heresy and apostasy which necessarily puts them outside the Church but +Sanborn inside the Church.
Therefore, +Sanborn is without a doubt, *not* outside the church.
Since according to +Sanborn (and all those who believe as he does), they both want to be a part of the Church, they both certainly desire to belong to the Church hence they both belong to the Church by desire - so what's all the fuss REALLY about?
If the Church teaches as +Sanborn stated: "that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that." then except for the sake of arguing, why argue about it at all?
This most definitely applies:
...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it. Yes, of course,
they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do
not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation. If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.
-
In +Sanborn's opening statements, he wholeheartedly affirms the dogma as well as anyone I've ever heard, but then by about 3:28, he is done echoing Church teaching as he concludes his opening affirmation with:
"...if you are outside it [the Church] you are a withered branch, as one pope said, that you have no possibility of salvation and, so forth."
In the next breath, at 3:34, he completely blows it when he begins:
"Now, here we must make the distinction that if you are outside the Church through no fault of your own, and you belong to the Church by desire - that is where you want to be part of it but for some reason, through no fault of your own you cannot become a part of it but you want to become a part of it - that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that."
Thank you for quoting that. I was going to get into it but didn't have time to take notes. Yes, his main objection to V2 ecclesiology (correctly) is EENS, and, accordingly, he makes a ton of citations reaffirming EENS. Then, as I noticed and you point out here, he basically denies EENS and undercuts his entire objection to the V2 ecclesiology. That's why Fastiggi wins hands down. Fastiggi then goes on to show how V2 makes sense based on this exact statement from +Sanborn (on which they both agree without hesitation). +Sanborn's statement is heretical. He explicitly states that if "you are outside the Church", "...[desire] is sufficient for salvation." Come on, at least don't be stupid and WORD FOR WORD deny EENS. You have to say that if you "want to become a part of [the Church]" then you are in fact INSIDE the Church. This formula "outside the Church through no fault of their own" so often used by Traditionalists is heretical.
Fastiggi in his rebuttal uses this as a premise to show how V2 ecclesiology does NOT contradict traditional theology (the EENS theology of Bishop Sanborn).
-
This certainly applies:
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it....
Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly. Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma. They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.
I see it as providential that this video was posted now.
Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS. In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II. But then then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II doe not contradict tradition.
EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reacton against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.
-
This certainly applies:
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it....
Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly. Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma. They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.
I see it as providential that this video was posted now.
Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS. In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II. But then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II does not contradict tradition.
EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reacton against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.
The part I made bold in your quote completely nails it squarely on the head.
Well said!
-
EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reacton against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.
BINGO!
-
In +Sanborn's opening statements, he wholeheartedly affirms the dogma as well as anyone I've ever heard, but then by about 3:28, he is done echoing Church teaching as he concludes his opening affirmation with:
"...if you are outside it [the Church] you are a withered branch, as one pope said, that you have no possibility of salvation and, so forth."
In the next breath, at 3:34, he completely blows it when he begins:
"Now, here we must make the distinction that if you are outside the Church through no fault of your own, and you belong to the Church by desire - that is where you want to be part of it but for some reason, through no fault of your own you cannot become a part of it but you want to become a part of it - that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that."
Thank you for quoting that. I was going to get into it but didn't have time to take notes. Yes, his main objection to V2 ecclesiology (correctly) is EENS, and, accordingly, he makes a ton of citations reaffirming EENS. Then, as I noticed and you point out here, he basically denies EENS and undercuts his entire objection to the V2 ecclesiology. That's why Fastiggi wins hands down. Fastiggi then goes on to show how V2 makes sense based on this exact statement from +Sanborn (on which they both agree without hesitation). +Sanborn's statement is heretical. He explicitly states that if "you are outside the Church", "...[desire] is sufficient for salvation." Come on, at least don't be stupid and WORD FOR WORD deny EENS. You have to say that if you "want to become a part of [the Church]" then you are in fact INSIDE the Church. This formula "outside the Church through no fault of their own" so often used by Traditionalists is heretical.
Fastiggi in his rebuttal uses this as a premise to show how V2 ecclesiology does NOT contradict traditional theology (the EENS theology of Bishop Sanborn).
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.
-
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.
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".
-
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.
-
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.
However, the article doesn't say what the title might imply to someone like you. The truth is that most people realized this was referring to those who were not members yet had supernatural faith. Ladislaus does not believe this is possible, yet the case of the catechumen disproves this along with the fact that he has no source for it.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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. The title of the article alone is enough for it to deserve to be placed on the index (if there still was an index).
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
The title is horrible, I agree with you, but the article itself was not heretical. CMRI, in my opinion should issue a correction on this, and retract the name of the article.
Fr. Barbara was not a heretic, so I have no idea how this all came about.
-
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.
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.
-
Myrna scanned the article for CathInfo HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Salvation)
-
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".
-
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".
Matto, you are correct, the title is heretical, but the article which it titles is not. This shows that neither Fr. Barbara nor the CMRI believe there is salvation outside the Church.
The title is scandalous and should be retracted.
-
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.
-
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.
I wish they had titled it "An Explanation of the Dogma, "Outside the Church, No Salvation." If they had done this, there would be no scandal, and there would be in need for this conversation.
Msgr. Fenton wrote to correct some theologians who were using imprecise terminology. In my opinion, this imprecision led to what is commonly called, "Feeneyism." What we have now are new ideas that even Fr. Feeney would be shocked about.
All of this could have been avoided if Catholics faithfully learned from and obeyed Pope Pius XII.
-
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.
I agree with you. The trouble is that the title said "Church," not "membership in the Church." It was an imprecise choice of word, but not heresy as you rightly state.
-
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".
I will say it - the article itself is heretical as the title, "The Salvation of those outside the Catholic Church", suggests.
Just like +Sanborn, he begins by affirming the truth in the first five paragraphs and ends by denying it in the sixth.
Who needs to read the rest of the article when all it will be is the last 4 pages of explaining why the first five paragraphs really mean nothing at all - and certainly do not mean what they say.
-
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".
I will say it - the article itself is heretical as the title, "The Salvation of those outside the Catholic Church", suggests.
Just like +Sanborn, he begins by affirming the truth in the first five paragraphs and ends by denying it in the sixth.
Who needs to read the rest of the article when all it will be is the last 4 pages of explaining why the first five paragraphs really mean nothing at all - and certainly do not mean what they say.
Then show a statement from the article to support your allegation of heresy.
-
Then show a statement from the article to support your allegation of heresy.
Read the first six paragraphs. It will take all of 1.5 minutes.
If you still need someone to point out the heresy in the sixth paragraph, I will point it out.
ETA, the paragraph above WHAT IS THE CHURCH is what I was saying is the sixth paragraph. My eyes are fatigued after working all day so it might be the seventh paragraph.
-
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".
I will say it - the article itself is heretical as the title, "The Salvation of those outside the Catholic Church", suggests.
Just like +Sanborn, he begins by affirming the truth in the first five paragraphs and ends by denying it in the sixth.
Who needs to read the rest of the article when all it will be is the last 4 pages of explaining why the first five paragraphs really mean nothing at all - and certainly do not mean what they say.
Do you make the same judgment of Pope Pius IX? He started out by affirming the dogma then denied it right?
-
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".
I will say it - the article itself is heretical as the title, "The Salvation of those outside the Catholic Church", suggests.
Just like +Sanborn, he begins by affirming the truth in the first five paragraphs and ends by denying it in the sixth.
Who needs to read the rest of the article when all it will be is the last 4 pages of explaining why the first five paragraphs really mean nothing at all - and certainly do not mean what they say.
Do you make the same judgment of Pope Pius IX? He started out by affirming the dogma then denied it right?
No. He did not do that - but it seems people think he left it up to theologians and bishops and priests to do that.
-
With Vatican II and way too many trads not embracing EENS, Fr. Feeney was apparently correct in his assessment that the lack of EENS was the missing ingredient in the lack of conversions to the Catholic Church in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Quite simply, if salvation exists outside the Church then why convert?
-
With Vatican II and way too many trads not embracing EENS, Fr. Feeney was apparently correct in his assessment that the lack of EENS was the missing ingredient in the lack of conversions to the Catholic Church in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Quite simply, if salvation exists outside the Church then why convert?
Exactly. Why convert or why stay a Catholic at all?
If salvation exists outside the Church, then the many heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church become mere luxuries and nonessential accessories of a spiritual life, which in itself is altogether unnecessary.
Trads should all be classified as certifiable fools to endure the slanders, sacrifices, persecutions etc. etc. that all Catholics are expected to endure - if there is any other way to get to heaven.
-
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".
I will say it - the article itself is heretical as the title, "The Salvation of those outside the Catholic Church", suggests.
Just like +Sanborn, he begins by affirming the truth in the first five paragraphs and ends by denying it in the sixth.
Who needs to read the rest of the article when all it will be is the last 4 pages of explaining why the first five paragraphs really mean nothing at all - and certainly do not mean what they say.
Do you make the same judgment of Pope Pius IX? He started out by affirming the dogma then denied it right?
No. He did not do that - but it seems people think he left it up to theologians and bishops and priests to do that.
Why weasel out of the condemnation of Pius IX? You are saying he not only allowed but instigated an error in dogma and a direct denial of dogma. Your position is pure politics and you're here to convince others of your position, which was noticed by no one and taught by nobody.
-
Why weasel out of the condemnation of Pius IX? You are saying he not only allowed but instigated an error in dogma and a direct denial of dogma. Your position is pure politics and you're here to convince others of your position, which was noticed by no one and taught by nobody.
It's the same old thing SJB. You and all BODers reject what the Church teaches so why should you be any different when it comes to what Pope Pius IX teaches? As is typical, you take a word and a sentence out of context and claim he taught that there actually is salvation outside the Church. What else is new?
You read something that is not written in Pius IX's Quanto, conficiamur because you do not read what was written as it is written.
Did you accidentally miss his teaching on Religious Indifference in his encyclical where he teaches:
"It is necessary once more to mention and censure a very serious error into which some Catholics have unhappily fallen. They tend to accept the opinion that men who live in error and are estranged from the true faith and Catholic unity can attain eternal life. This notion is in direct opposition to orthodox teaching."
Did you miss that part? Certainly you must have since you already think in direct opposition to orthodox teaching.
Did you also miss this part?
"However, equally well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one whatsoever can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who perversely oppose the authority and teachings of that Church, and obstinately remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom the care of the vineyard was appointed by our Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."
Yes, you most certainly must have missed both those parts since you think that those outside the Church certainly can obtain eternal salvation.
It sounds as though you zoomed right into this part, which, btw, is sandwiched right in between the two above paragraphs, and in this way you can say with a clear conscience that there really IS salvation outside the Church and that the pope even taught such a thing:
"...those who are struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion.....God, ..... would not, out of His supreme goodness and mercy allow anyone to suffer everlasting torments, who is innocent of all willful transgression."
Well, you go right ahead and feel free to believe that the pope says that outside the Church there is no salvation and at the same time also says that sometimes there is.
Perhaps you deserve a certificate of some sort for figuring it out in only a few sentences, whereas the CRMI priest took four pages and others like Fenton take an entire library to reduce the dogma to a meaningless formula.
-
You know Stubborn, if things were reversed and we gave the evidence that SJB and the Heroin BODers give for salvation of those with no explicit desire to be Catholics, we would be laughed out of this place.
As a matter of fact, speaking for myself I would never even venture to propose such a belief if I had such scanty "evidence" as they put forward. For I would be embarrassed to be exposed as a fool.
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to go".
-
"However, equally well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one whatsoever can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who perversely oppose the authority and teachings of that Church, and obstinately remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom the care of the vineyard was appointed by our Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."
Yes, you most certainly must have missed both those parts since you think that those outside the Church certainly can obtain eternal salvation.
It sounds as though you zoomed right into this part, which, btw, is sandwiched right in between the two above paragraphs, and in this way you can say with a clear conscience that there really IS salvation outside the Church and that the pope even taught such a thing:
"...those who are struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion.....God, ..... would not, out of His supreme goodness and mercy allow anyone to suffer everlasting torments, who is innocent of all willful transgression."
Well, you go right ahead and feel free to believe that the pope says that outside the Church there is no salvation and at the same time also says that sometimes there is.
Perhaps you deserve a certificate of some sort for figuring it out in only a few sentences, whereas the CRMI priest took four pages and others like Fenton take an entire library to reduce the dogma to a meaningless formula.
Nobody think he taught there were any exceptions to the dogma. The dogma, as written and interpreted by the Church, say that outside the Church there is no salvation. It doesn't say what you think it says and that's why you have no sources for your position, which is not as written at all.
-
You know Stubborn, if things were reversed and we gave the evidence that SJB and the Heroin BODers give for salvation of those with no explicit desire to be Catholics, we would be laughed out of this place.
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens. They are not yet baptized and thus are not members by definition.
The truth is that you don't even know what you believe.
-
Nobody think he taught there were any exceptions to the dogma. The dogma, as written and interpreted taught by the Church, say that outside the Church there is no salvation. It doesn't say what you think it says and that's why you have no sources for your position, which is not as written at all.
I corrected your quote, perhaps you might want to read V1 on the subject, particularly where the Council informs us that when the Church interprets declares a dogma, it is to be protected, not interpreted - and that the meaning of the dogma is to be understood as declared, not interpreted under the [false] pretext of a more profound understanding.
If you can ever grasp and accept that infallible teaching from Holy Mother the Church, you will have made tremendous progress and see that the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really.
Until then, you will continue to foolishly believe that the Church teaches there is both no salvation outside the Church and some salvation outside the Church.
-
You know Stubborn, if things were reversed and we gave the evidence that SJB and the Heroin BODers give for salvation of those with no explicit desire to be Catholics, we would be laughed out of this place.
As a matter of fact, speaking for myself I would never even venture to propose such a belief if I had such scanty "evidence" as they put forward. For I would be embarrassed to be exposed as a fool.
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to go".
I agree completely.
I thought it seemed obvious that +Sanborn's argument in the debate was certainly futile when the NO people are outside of the Church through no fault of their own - yet they certainly desire to belong to the Church ergo they are members by desire.
Why all the fuss?
-
"...those who are struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion.....God, ..... would not, out of His supreme goodness and mercy allow anyone to suffer everlasting torments, who is innocent of all willful transgression."
Torments from the Latin poena refers to sensible suffering vs. pain of loss from Original Sin.
To read this the BoD way would cause Pius IX to have uttered something tantamount to heresy. It would be to say that God wouldn't allow anyone to be lost who is innocent of actual sin, i.e. guilty only of Original Sin. But that's in fact the case with any unbaptized infants ... they are lost despite being innocent of all willful transgression. They do not, however, suffer actual torments, i.e. punishment of sensible suffering due to actual sin.
Typical desperate BoDer distortion of any and all statements that could POSSIBLY be misinterpreted, misconstrued, or misunderstood as implying BoD.
-
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.
Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.
So BoD went from
1) NONE
to
2) Catechumens
to
3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism
to
4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)
to
5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants
to
6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God
to
7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.
It's a joke and an abomination.
-
Nobody think he taught there were any exceptions to the dogma. The dogma, as written and interpreted taught by the Church, say that outside the Church there is no salvation. It doesn't say what you think it says and that's why you have no sources for your position, which is not as written at all.
I corrected your quote, perhaps you might want to read V1 on the subject, particularly where the Council informs us that when the Church interprets declares a dogma, it is to be protected, not interpreted - and that the meaning of the dogma is to be understood as declared, not interpreted under the [false] pretext of a more profound understanding.
If you can ever grasp and accept that infallible teaching from Holy Mother the Church, you will have made tremendous progress and see that the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really.
Until then, you will continue to foolishly believe that the Church teaches there is both no salvation outside the Church and some salvation outside the Church.
The Church explains Her teachings in various ways. You think all you need is a copy of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (like a Protestant only needs a copy of the Bible).
-
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.
Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.
So BoD went from
1) NONE
to
2) Catechumens
to
3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism
to
4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)
to
5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants
to
6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God
to
7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.
It's a joke and an abomination.
I'm speaking of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church as a member. The Church would tell this person they would enter the Church by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. Nobody except a catechumen would have explicit desire to enter the Church.
-
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.
Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.
So BoD went from
1) NONE
to
2) Catechumens
to
3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism
to
4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)
to
5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants
to
6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God
to
7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.
It's a joke and an abomination.
And in the end, EENS evolved into "Who knows who is lost? We can't judge." That is what all the heroin BODers believe.
-
Nobody think he taught there were any exceptions to the dogma. The dogma, as written and interpreted taught by the Church, say that outside the Church there is no salvation. It doesn't say what you think it says and that's why you have no sources for your position, which is not as written at all.
I corrected your quote, perhaps you might want to read V1 on the subject, particularly where the Council informs us that when the Church interprets declares a dogma, it is to be protected, not interpreted - and that the meaning of the dogma is to be understood as declared, not interpreted under the [false] pretext of a more profound understanding.
If you can ever grasp and accept that infallible teaching from Holy Mother the Church, you will have made tremendous progress and see that the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really.
Until then, you will continue to foolishly believe that the Church teaches there is both no salvation outside the Church and some salvation outside the Church.
The Church explains Her teachings in various ways. You think all you need is a copy of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (like a Protestant only needs a copy of the Bible).
So first you foolishly stated She "interpreted" dogmas instead of declaring them, now you try to be clever about it and say that she "explains" her teachings in various ways. Is there supposed to be some difference between interpreting a dogma and explaining a dogma in various ways?
Did you read V1 yet? If so, it looks like you still read it all wrong since you still think it says that when the Church declares a sacred dogma, no one really understands what She is teaching and that the dogma is not to be understood as declared because it is open to interpretation and needs to be explained in order to be understood.
If that weren't so sad, it'd be laughable.
FYI, the Church *interprets* Holy Scripture for us but She *declares* sacred dogma.
According to your logic, the next post you make will need an interpretation because what you are posting will not mean what it says and/or has hidden and different meanings. Strange way to try to get a point across by any measure. The fact is that everyone will walk away with a different idea about what you are attempting to communicate, the result will be that nobody at all whatsoever will be able to agree about what you are saying.
Now, while that may or may not ring true for you, it is not true for the Church. She does not make frivolous infallible declarations with contradictory meanings, rather, "that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Again, just fyi.
-
So first you foolishly stated She "interpreted" dogmas instead of declaring them, now you try to be clever about it and say that she "explains" her teachings in various ways. Is there supposed to be some difference between interpreting a dogma and explaining a dogma in various ways?
Did you read V1 yet? If so, it looks like you still read it all wrong since you still think it says that when the Church declares a sacred dogma, no one really understands what She is teaching and that the dogma is not to be understood as declared because it is open to interpretation and needs to be explained in order to be understood.
I stated it a different way because you were too blind to understand. It's quite possible for you to misinterpret a dogma simply by reading a Canon incorrectly. Yes, the Church through her authorized teachers, thru the Holy Office, etc. interprets and explains those dogmas for confused people like you.
The question you've never answered is where you "learned" what you claim is the correct understanding of certain dogmas.
-
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.
Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.
So BoD went from
1) NONE
to
2) Catechumens
to
3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism
to
4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)
to
5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants
to
6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God
to
7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.
It's a joke and an abomination.
BOD (and all heresies that derive from it) is a most destructive tool that the enemies of the Church have been using for centuries to tear her down by reducing her to the level of "just another church" or other "Christian denomination". They have done precisely so, on a gradual and a sneaky way.
A Catholic does good to his / her soul by making the distinction of what is Church defined dogma and what is personal or theological speculation and discard those that contradict the Infallible teaching of the Church which cannot contain error and cannot be contradicted. Even if we accept that BOD is "commonly taught" nowadays as part of Catholic catechism (which unfortunately is, most definitive in the Novus Ordo conciliar newchurch and with disastrous results for the Faith), this does not make it correct or infallible. Arianism, for example, was a commonly taught heresy that plagued the Church in the past until the heresy was resisted. The same as today we are told and taught that there is salvation outside the Church. It can't get more repugnant than that. It pains my ears every time I hear it and see how the Holy True Faith of Christ Our Lord gets distorted and put to the same level of any false religion or cult.
-
The question you've never answered is where you "learned" what you claim is the correct understanding of certain dogmas.
Note that SJB doesn't hold himself to his own standards. He just uses this argument when he is stuck in a corner.
He contributes nothing of value.
-
Even if we accept that BOD is "commonly taught" nowadays as part of Catholic catechism (which unfortunately is, most definitive in the Novus Ordo conciliar newchurch and with disastrous results for the Faith), this does not make it correct or infallible. Arianism, for example, was a commonly taught heresy that plagued the Church in the past until the heresy was resisted. The same as today we are told and taught that there is salvation outside the Church.
This is a crucial point. Father Cekada and others (like SJB) keep proposing this veritable "infallibility of theologians" nonsense to propose as traditionally Catholic any modernistic ideas and heresies that were held by most theologians before Vatican II. Father Cekada has more or less stated that things commonly taught by (a majority of modernist-infected) theologians before Vatican II are essentially part of the ordinary universal magisterium and are infallible. That's just utterly ridiculous.
-
So first you foolishly stated She "interpreted" dogmas instead of declaring them, now you try to be clever about it and say that she "explains" her teachings in various ways. Is there supposed to be some difference between interpreting a dogma and explaining a dogma in various ways?
Did you read V1 yet? If so, it looks like you still read it all wrong since you still think it says that when the Church declares a sacred dogma, no one really understands what She is teaching and that the dogma is not to be understood as declared because it is open to interpretation and needs to be explained in order to be understood.
I stated it a different way because you were too blind to understand. It's quite possible for you to misinterpret a dogma simply by reading a Canon incorrectly. Yes, the Church through her authorized teachers, thru the Holy Office, etc. interprets and explains those dogmas for confused people like you.
No matter how you say it, you still believe the Church has to interpret Her own dogmas. If the Church meant to say there was some salvation outside of Herself, then why did She declare there was no salvation outside of Herself?
The only way to read it wrong is to add exceptions to that which is declared. The only way to understand it wrong is to listen to interpreters who make exceptions to that which has been declared *to* us.
Again, the Church "interprets Holy Scripture" *for* us, but She "declares sacred dogma" *to* us. It is to be understood as declared, not interpreted.
The question you've never answered is where you "learned" what you claim is the correct understanding of certain dogmas.
I already told you, the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really. Have you read V1 yet? Where is your source that taught you that of all things, dogmas need to be interpreted?
Why are you a Catholic when there is another way into heaven? Particularly when the other roads to get there are so much wider, smoother and have a whole lot less pot holes. If you believe there's another way, you should join those on the easier road, protesting the whole way against being a member of a Church that mandates it's members adhere to purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience - to name only a few.
Why fight temptations and deprive yourself of the pleasures when you can have the pleasures and salvation too?
Go ahead, join the rest if you want to - you are so sure that some other persons can make it who are outside of the Church, then if they can make it, certainly you can make it. So what holds you back?
-
No matter how you say it, you still believe the Church has to interpret Her own dogmas. If the Church meant to say there was some salvation outside of Herself, then why did She declare there was no salvation outside of Herself?
The dogma in question isn't a definition. It is a well know dogma, as referred to by Pius IX, no different than the dogma that one must be subject to the Roman pontiff. The Church has certainly explained these dogmas because they can be misunderstood by proud or ignorant people like you.
-
I already told you, the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really. Have you read V1 yet? Where is your source that taught you that of all things, dogmas need to be interpreted?
Why are you a Catholic when there is another way into heaven? Particularly when the other roads to get there are so much wider, smoother and have a whole lot less pot holes. If you believe there's another way, you should join those on the easier road, protesting the whole way against being a member of a Church that mandates it's members adhere to purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience - to name only a few.
Why fight temptations and deprive yourself of the pleasures when you can have the pleasures and salvation too?
Go ahead, join the rest if you want to - you are so sure that some other persons can make it who are outside of the Church, then if they can make it, certainly you can make it. So what holds you back?
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.
I might also point out the very essence of your post is to discourage a life of purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience. For a serious person who might be truly struggling with an invincible ignorance of the duty of joining the Church, you sound like a man who discounts any such struggle and instead is supremely critical of such a person as if he didn't even have a chance at salvation. You challenge those who disagree with you to become an apostate, which is disgusting.
-
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.
Note SJB can't show a Catholic authority explaining things regarding the way he sees Vatican II.
He uses this as a tactic to waste people's time and divert attention from the real issues. He does this without making any useful contribution.
-
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.
Note SJB can't show a Catholic authority explaining things regarding the way he sees Vatican II.
He uses this as a tactic to waste people's time and divert attention from the real issues. He does this without making any useful contribution.
Only an idiot would say what you say here in the very midst of a crisis. Of course there's no judgment from authority ... It's a crisis situation!
Sometimes I wonder where people like you come from ...
-
One of the more common occurrences on this forum is SJB calling someone an idiot, or the equivalent of that. I guess we must all be a bunch of morons. I wonder why he suffers us. It must be his supernatural charity.
-
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.
Note SJB can't show a Catholic authority explaining things regarding the way he sees Vatican II.
He uses this as a tactic to waste people's time and divert attention from the real issues. He does this without making any useful contribution.
Only an idiot would say what you say here in the very midst of a crisis. Of course there's no judgment from authority ... It's a crisis situation!
Sometimes I wonder where people like you come from ...
So you resort to name calling now.
And you're further diverting. Which theologians see Vatican II the way you do?
Name them now or get off threads discussing BoD - some people here are interested in discussing these matters.
-
One of the more common occurrences on this forum is SJB calling someone an idiot, or the equivalent of that. I guess we must all be a bunch of morons. I wonder why he suffers us. It must be his supernatural charity.
No, not at all. Quite infrequently actually, but some of you have proven yourselves to be just that.
-
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.
Note SJB can't show a Catholic authority explaining things regarding the way he sees Vatican II.
He uses this as a tactic to waste people's time and divert attention from the real issues. He does this without making any useful contribution.
Only an idiot would say what you say here in the very midst of a crisis. Of course there's no judgment from authority ... It's a crisis situation!
Sometimes I wonder where people like you come from ...
Anything but answer what I actually said, Alcuin.
-
SJB, very simply. You are on record as stating that the Church's approved theologians cannot be in error. So, very simply name the approved theologians who have come to the same conclusions about Vatican II that you have.
If you cannot name anyone then please stop derailing BoD threads. Put up or shut up, your credibility is on the line here.
-
I already told you, the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really. Have you read V1 yet? Where is your source that taught you that of all things, dogmas need to be interpreted?
Why are you a Catholic when there is another way into heaven? Particularly when the other roads to get there are so much wider, smoother and have a whole lot less pot holes. If you believe there's another way, you should join those on the easier road, protesting the whole way against being a member of a Church that mandates it's members adhere to purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience - to name only a few.
Why fight temptations and deprive yourself of the pleasures when you can have the pleasures and salvation too?
Go ahead, join the rest if you want to - you are so sure that some other persons can make it who are outside of the Church, then if they can make it, certainly you can make it. So what holds you back?
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.
You do not consider magisterial pronouncements as authoritative because you believe the Church must submit to the judgement of her subjects. I assume you do this through no fault of your own so it's all good.
I might also point out the very essence of your post is to discourage a life of purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience. For a serious person who might be truly struggling with an invincible ignorance of the duty of joining the Church, you sound like a man who discounts any such struggle and instead is supremely critical of such a person as if he didn't even have a chance at salvation. You challenge those who disagree with you to become an apostate, which is disgusting.
Your argument is both ambiguous and untenable via your own silly belief.
FYI, a serious person who is struggling in invincible ignorance of the duty of joining the Church is already saved according to you - there is nothing that, according to you, can possibly change that fact. According to you, the Church teaches this.
You crack me up the way you predictably weasel out of every question and challenge. Read what was written as it is written - - -I ASKED *YOU* why are *YOU* a Catholic if there is any other way? Why are you more concerned about the salvation of someone else before your own salvation?
-
One of the more common occurrences on this forum is SJB calling someone an idiot, or the equivalent of that. I guess we must all be a bunch of morons. I wonder why he suffers us. It must be his supernatural charity.
But he probably did not mean what he said. Hard to tell with him.
He needs his posts to be run through some type of interpreter so that the things he says can be explained. Otherwise we can be sure he only means what he says, sometimes; other times he certainly does not mean what he says at all, still other times the things he says may sound like he means one thing, but he really means something completely different. SJB speaks just like de fide canons, infallible declarations and Church teaching.
It's all about what he means and your interpretation of it - hence the need for an interpreter to explain what he posts.
:facepalm:
-
You do not consider magisterial pronouncements as authoritative because you believe the Church must submit to the judgement of her subjects. I assume you do this through no fault of your own so it's all good.
The Church isn't a collection of Canons and Decrees that you get to interpret, which is exactly what you are doing. This is why I ask you to show us where you got your understanding of the dogma of EENS. Surely, it was taught and explained by some living Catholic authority.
-
You do not consider magisterial pronouncements as authoritative because you believe the Church must submit to the judgement of her subjects. I assume you do this through no fault of your own so it's all good.
The Church isn't a collection of Canons and Decrees that you get to interpret, which is exactly what you are doing. This is why I ask you to show us where you got your understanding of the dogma of EENS. Surely, it was taught and explained by some living Catholic authority.
:facepalm:
-
You do not consider magisterial pronouncements as authoritative because you believe the Church must submit to the judgement of her subjects. I assume you do this through no fault of your own so it's all good.
The Church isn't a collection of Canons and Decrees that you get to interpret, which is exactly what you are doing. This is why I ask you to show us where you got your understanding of the dogma of EENS. Surely, it was taught and explained by some living Catholic authority.
:facepalm:
Yes, :facepalm:
-
You do not consider magisterial pronouncements as authoritative because you believe the Church must submit to the judgement of her subjects. I assume you do this through no fault of your own so it's all good.
The Church isn't a collection of Canons and Decrees that you get to interpret, which is exactly what you are doing. This is why I ask you to show us where you got your understanding of the dogma of EENS. Surely, it was taught and explained by some living Catholic authority.
:facepalm:
Yes, :facepalm:
Yes, the “face palm” tells us what you really believe. This is why I maintain you two are, in the most charitable judgment, simply not very bright. You believe you are infallible in reading the Popes and Trent and Vatican I, yet NOBODY agrees with your interpretation.
You can't tell us what Trent means, and then when asked to provide one authoritative source who agrees with your interpretation, point us back to Trent. That is what is circular, yet I don't think you're intelligent enough to see it. Bower is a little sharper than you, but not much, and I think Ladislaus knows both of you are significantly challenged, to put it gently.
-
All that from a guy who thinks the Church teaches there really is salvation outside the Catholic Church - as if She would even need to even make that declaration.
:facepalm:
-
All that from a guy who thinks the Church teaches there really is salvation outside the Catholic Church - as if She would even need to even make that declaration.
:facepalm:
He's a Heroin BODer, a determinist who believes that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ or the Trinity. He believes that these people, who die believing themselves to be Jews, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhists, are really Catholics without knowing it, and so are inside of the Church. Therefore, he will tell you that he does not deny EENS.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jun/jun3ftt.htm
No Salvation Outside the Church
"Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
The title says it all "Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
The Heroin BODer is a determinist, he believes that God has no control over the events in our lives. Therefore, they see the clear dogmas on EENS and the sacrament of baptism, and they say it is uncharitable to "interpret" them as they are written, that people who believe thus are saying ""Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
That is the bottom line, the Heroin BODer is a determinist, being determinists believe that:
- someone is born by pure chance in a place far away.
Answer: No one is born by chance in a place other than EXACTLY where God's providence put them.
- they believe that they saved themselves by learning the faith, but that their neighbor did not have the same teachers/opportunity.
Answer - The Heroin BODer did practically NOTHING to get their "knowledge", it ALL came from God's Grace. Even their accepting God's Grace came from God. When they go to their final judgement, they will then know that all they did was maybe lean 1/10 of 1 degree toward God, and He did the rest. God provides the same to all persons. But the Heroin BODer does not believe that. They believe that there are people who by chance (determinist) may be lost.
- the Heroin BODer, as a determinist, believes that the Holy Ghost would make all the clear dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism, and NEVER ONCE teaching any form of baptism of desire infallibly, while at the same time EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree does not mean what they say. In other words, they believe that God from before he created the world, thought of this "system" of teaching infallible something which does not mean what it says. AFTERALL, the Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic. Only a determinist could come up with such a "god", a god who has no control over the events of life, a god who's grace is useless.
see see http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29140&f=9&min=0&num=5 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29140&f=9&min=0&num=5)
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
-
All that from a guy who thinks the Church teaches there really is salvation outside the Catholic Church - as if She would even need to even make that declaration.
:facepalm:
You're proving again how you have your very own understanding of Church teaching and misrepresent those who oppose your mistaken interpretations.
-
He's a Heroin BODer, a determinist who believes that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ or the Trinity. He believes that these people, who die believing themselves to be Jews, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhists, are really Catholics without knowing it, and so are inside of the Church. Therefore, he will tell you that he does not deny EENS.
And anybody who reads what I have consistently posted here over the past years will see that you are a liar.
-
All that from a guy who thinks the Church teaches there really is salvation outside the Catholic Church - as if She would even need to even make that declaration.
:facepalm:
You're proving again how you have your very own understanding of Church teaching and misrepresent those who oppose your mistaken interpretations.
:facepalm:
Here, I think it was you who has compared a BOD to a COD (Confession of Desire) - make the comparison again. Use your interpreters and post an 11 page essay which proves the below canon really means by faith alone we can rise again after we have fallen into sin via a Confession of Desire.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
-
This is why I maintain you two are, in the most charitable judgment, simply not very bright
State the authorities that sees Vatican II the way you do and I'll concede that I'm not very bright.
Now is not the time to weasel out like you have in the past.
-
From reading SJB's postings over quite a long time now, I have concluded that he is terrified of posting anything that can be shown to be wrong, therefore, he posts nothing that he can be pinned down on. Finally, he has come down to posting nothings, one short inconsequential sentence per posting. He is like a deer frozen in front of the headlights, his panic of being wrong keeps him from contributing anything.
In 1923, Babe Ruth broke the record for most home runs in a season. That same year, he also broke the record for highest batting average. There is a third record he broke that year that most people don't know about: In 1923, Babe Ruth struck out more times than any other player in Major League
Babe Ruth was not afraid to strike out. And it was this fearlessness that contributed to his remarkable career. He was the first player to hit 60 home runs in one season, a record he held for 34 years until Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. He also held the lifetime total home run record of 714 for 39 years until Hank Aaron broke it in 1974.
He held other records too. He had 1,330 career strike outs — a record he held for 29 years until it was broken by none other than the great Mickey Mantle.
Swing for the fences
Most people want to hit home runs; the problem is that they are not willing to strike out (meaning that they fear failure) in order to get there. As Babe Ruth proved, you can't have one without the other. If you want to swing for the fences, you have to be willing to strike out. ■
-
All that from a guy who thinks the Church teaches there really is salvation outside the Catholic Church - as if She would even need to even make that declaration.
:facepalm:
You're proving again how you have your very own understanding of Church teaching and misrepresent those who oppose your mistaken interpretations.
:facepalm:
Here, I think it was you who has compared a BOD to a COD (Confession of Desire) - make the comparison again. Use your interpreters and post an 11 page essay which proves the below canon really means by faith alone we can rise again after we have fallen into sin via a Confession of Desire.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
This "faith alone" line is a relatively new angle for you fellows. Did you all get together to think it up? Or did it come from Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi's mind?
-
From reading SJB's postings over quite a long time now, I have concluded that he is terrified of posting anything that can be shown to be wrong, therefore, he posts nothing that he can be pinned down on. Finally, he has come down to posting nothings, one short inconsequential sentence per posting. He is like a deer frozen in front of the headlights, his panic of being wrong keeps him from contributing anything.
In 1923, Babe Ruth broke the record for most home runs in a season. That same year, he also broke the record for highest batting average. There is a third record he broke that year that most people don't know about: In 1923, Babe Ruth struck out more times than any other player in Major League
Babe Ruth was not afraid to strike out. And it was this fearlessness that contributed to his remarkable career. He was the first player to hit 60 home runs in one season, a record he held for 34 years until Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. He also held the lifetime total home run record of 714 for 39 years until Hank Aaron broke it in 1974.
He held other records too. He had 1,330 career strike outs — a record he held for 29 years until it was broken by none other than the great Mickey Mantle.
Swing for the fences
Most people want to hit home runs; the problem is that they are not willing to strike out (meaning that they fear failure) in order to get there. As Babe Ruth proved, you can't have one without the other. If you want to swing for the fences, you have to be willing to strike out. ■
That would be called humility, something you don't understand. Some choose to defer to the authortative experts and LEARN from them.
It has been said that all analogies limp, yet you've taken that to new more crippling level. A more fitting analogy would be you as a novice player and simply rejecting any coaching from expert coaches and trainers. Then you "take the risk" and try to figure it all out on your own. The sad fact is that there are no failures to humble you, you're just a guy on the internet shooting off his mouth. In this forum, Matthew is the only one who could humble you, and he just won't do it. You continue to strike out, but you constantly think you've just hit a grand slam.
-
All that from a guy who thinks the Church teaches there really is salvation outside the Catholic Church - as if She would even need to even make that declaration.
:facepalm:
You're proving again how you have your very own understanding of Church teaching and misrepresent those who oppose your mistaken interpretations.
:facepalm:
Here, I think it was you who has compared a BOD to a COD (Confession of Desire) - make the comparison again. Use your interpreters and post an 11 page essay which proves the below canon really means by faith alone we can rise again after we have fallen into sin via a Confession of Desire.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
This "faith alone" line is a relatively new angle for you fellows. Did you all get together to think it up? Or did it come from Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi's mind?
Still having trouble reading what is written?
Well, keep trying.
And yes, we can compare to a BOD with a COD agreeing that they are both protestant in their theology - and that you, SJB, can confess your sins directly to Jesus, not a priest, and a BOD has no need of any priest, minister or water - just some vague desire and Jesus will save you by your faith alone!
Can you see how much alike the two are now that it has been explained to you for the 49 millionth time? :fryingpan:
-
Well, your "as written" isn't correct at all. This just proves what an idiot you are when you rely on your own intellect, or lack thereof.
The Catechism of Trent says : "In the general opinion of the pious, whatever of holiness, piety, and religion has been preserved in the Church in our times, through the boundless beneficence of God, is to be ascribed in a great measure to confession." 18 The same authority describes Penance as " this citadel, so to speak, of Christian virtue," and adds that, though sins are cancelled by perfect con trition, few can reach a sufficient degree of contrition, and consequently it was "necessary that the Lord, in His infinite mercy, should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He did, in His admirable wisdom, when He gave to the Church the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." 14
-
Well, your "as written" isn't correct at all. This just proves what an idiot you are when you rely on your own intellect, or lack thereof.
The Catechism of Trent says : "In the general opinion of the pious, whatever of holiness, piety, and religion has been preserved in the Church in our times, through the boundless beneficence of God, is to be ascribed in a great measure to confession." 18 The same authority describes Penance as " this citadel, so to speak, of Christian virtue," and adds that, though sins are cancelled by perfect con trition, few can reach a sufficient degree of contrition, and consequently it was "necessary that the Lord, in His infinite mercy, should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He did, in His admirable wisdom, when He gave to the Church the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." 14
You *STILL* aren't reading what is written.
A BOD really must be a drug for you.
Keep trying SJB. You'll get it one of these days, if you keep trying.
Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?
-
Well, your "as written" isn't correct at all. This just proves what an idiot you are when you rely on your own intellect, or lack thereof.
The Catechism of Trent says : "In the general opinion of the pious, whatever of holiness, piety, and religion has been preserved in the Church in our times, through the boundless beneficence of God, is to be ascribed in a great measure to confession." 18 The same authority describes Penance as " this citadel, so to speak, of Christian virtue," and adds that, though sins are cancelled by perfect contrition, few can reach a sufficient degree of contrition, and consequently it was "necessary that the Lord, in His infinite mercy, should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He did, in His admirable wisdom, when He gave to the Church the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." 14
You *STILL* aren't reading what is written.
A BOD really must be a drug for you.
Keep trying SJB. You'll get it one of these days, if you keep trying.
Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?
Are you really that stupid, Mr. "AS WRITTEN"?
The fact that sins are cancelled by perfect contrition doesn't diminish or deny the need for a Sacramental Confession. The Sacrament is a benefit to all, yet God's Grace is not bound by the Sacraments.
-
Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?
Are you really that stupid, Mr. "AS WRITTEN"?
The fact that sins are cancelled by perfect contrition doesn't diminish or deny the need for a Sacramental Confession. The Sacrament is a benefit to all, yet God's Grace is not bound by the Sacraments.
Who says it's a fact besides you and LOT and other sacrament despisers?
See if any of this makes sense to you. If not, try to read it as it is written, not what you want to make it say for a change - ok? If you still don't get it, we'll keep trying till you do get it.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.
Pay attention to what Trent teaches regarding Perfect Contrition.........
Hence the- Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.
Trent's catechism continues:
The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance
Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.
It goes on:
Necessity Of Confession
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
Here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
-
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Exactly. Now actually read it instead of arguing with it.
-
You know SJB, instead of reading what is written, you read into it what you want it to say. You do that all the time even after you are corrected.
Therefore, stop being a hypocrite, show us you are sincere and practice what you preach already - never go to confession again for the rest of your life. Forget about calling for a priest when you are dying, your desire to confess will certainly suffice - if you really and truly believe that the Church teaches a COD. Start posting about how well a COD works for you so we know you actually practice what you preach.
Otherwise, admit with the the council and catechism of Trent that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance.
-
You know SJB, instead of reading what is written, you read into it what you want it to say. You do that all the time even after you are corrected.
Therefore, stop being a hypocrite, show us you are sincere and practice what you preach already - never go to confession again for the rest of your life. Forget about calling for a priest when you are dying, your desire to confess will certainly suffice - if you really and truly believe that the Church teaches a COD. Start posting about how well a COD works for you so we know you actually practice what you preach.
Otherwise, admit with the the council and catechism of Trent that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance.
You are a stupid fool and maybe that's why you call youself stubborn.
This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins.
Charity may be perfect or imperfect : the former justifies man by its own efficacy; the latter only in the Sacrament of Penance. (See the articles Attrition and Contrition.)
-
You are a stupid fool and maybe that's why you call youself stubborn.
This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins.
Charity may be perfect or imperfect : the former justifies man by its own efficacy; the latter only in the Sacrament of Penance. (See the articles Attrition and Contrition.)
You quote a dictionary to "interpret" the clear teaching of the council and the council's catechism?
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.
Now c'mon SJB, stop being a hypocrite, show us you REALLY believe what you preach, that your faith in what you preach is strong and never go to confession again for the rest of your life. Start posting about how well a COD works for you so we know you actually practice what you preach.
Otherwise, admit with the the council and catechism of Trent that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance and stop looking for loopholes from sources which contradict what the Church teaches.
-
You are a stupid fool and maybe that's why you call youself stubborn.
This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins.
Charity may be perfect or imperfect : the former justifies man by its own efficacy; the latter only in the Sacrament of Penance. (See the articles Attrition and Contrition.)
You quote a dictionary to "interpret" the clear teaching of the council and the council's catechism?
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.
Now c'mon SJB, stop being a hypocrite, show us you REALLY believe what you preach, that your faith in what you preach is strong and never go to confession again for the rest of your life. Start posting about how well a COD works for you so we know you actually practice what you preach.
Otherwise, admit with the the council and catechism of Trent that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance and stop looking for loopholes from sources which contradict what the Church teaches.
You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.
-
You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.
Waiting for you to do that for Vatican II...
-
How is it that someone so intelligent can be so blind? - I think people who go through the NO education / indoctrination process are brainwashed, and brainwashed permanently. He is the third NOer I knew who is an educated NOer - nothing worse than an educated NOer - impossible to get through to those folks.
But Fastiggi is the one who's internally consistent. Fastiggi and Sanborn both believe that non-Catholics can be saved. Fastiggi shows how Vatican II ecclesiology simply follows from that.
Just as I have been saying, the CRUX of Traditional Catholicism is the PREMISE, i.e. whether there's extended BoD. If there's extended BoD, then Vatican II follows logically therefrom.
It also makes Traditional Catholics look bad when not only Bishop Sanborn but numerous members of the audience start laughing at Fastiggi in a very derisive tone -- a very poor showing that makes Traditional Catholics look really bad.
I don't believe what Sanborn believes but at least he makes the distinction of invincible ignorance, he says only then would such persons be saved according to him, whereas Vatican 2 makes no such distinction but blatantly says that heretical and schismatic sects as such are means of salvation and are in the Church of Christ etc.
Sanborn & co. say someone could be saved if he were in invincible ignorance per accidens but Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo sect reject such a thing and says that any and all can be saved outside the Church by and through and in their sects.[/i]
Your "distinction" reminds me of the fornicators, shackups and the adulterers criticizing the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. It's Sanborn's belief and defense in the theory of salvation by implicit faith (the belief that one can be saved who is not baptized, nor has any explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ) that allows the progressivists to carry on with their destruction of the Church. Till these so-called traditionalists clergy like Sanborn and Fellay stop their own "fornicating, shacking up and the adultery" of defending salvation by implicit faith, we will continue in the desert. Sanborn and those like him do not have a leg to stand on regarding ecuмenism and religious liberty, as long as they rabidly defend the theory that one can be saved who is not baptized, nor has any explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ. They are like fornicators, shackups and the adulterers criticizing the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.
-
.
This was a very good post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29234&min=40#p1):
This certainly applies:
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it....
Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly. Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma.
They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.
I see it as providential that this video was posted now.
Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS. In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II. But then then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II doe not contradict tradition.
EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reaction against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.
I would like to take this one step higher, if that's okay. This 'visceral reaction' is the principal substance of their opposition to everything Newchurch. Trads who reject Vat.II but accept BoD tend to rely on their 'feelings' about what's wrong with Newsacraments and Newmass and everything else Conciliar. It's as though their preference for the TLM is founded on its trappings and appearances and prayers, but not so much on the complete integrity of its doctrine. They will CLAIM to adhere to its doctrine, but when it comes to EENS, they defer to the popular notion of BoD and BoB as if they were fundamental principles.
There are some of these BoD-ers who try to keep TLM preference founded on doctrine, but they are frustrated because their thinking keeps running into self-contradictions. Other, more superficial Trads rely entirely on emotionalism, because they don't have the patience or perhaps the intelligence to think deeply about doctrine and theological principles. And when given the opportunity, they try to change topic to something they're more 'comfortable' talking about, such as movies, celebrities, politicians or their friends and acquaintances.
For these, the visceral reaction and revulsion they experience against clown masses and other liturgical abuses, is all they know. It's not right because it doesn't FEEL right. All they know is their feelings.
I would like to thank Stubborn and Ladislaus for this thread because your contributions are actually more informative than the recorded debate.
.
-
You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.
FYI the Council is *thee* authority and for additional explanation I posted the link and quote from Trent's catechism.
There is no other higher authority - unless perhaps you would like for me to quote from Scripture. Would that make you happy?
Try to avoid getting caught up in the whole "the Church must submit to the Fathers" mentality - the Fathers are not "the Church" because the Fathers willingly submit to the Judgement of "the Church" - try to always remember that.
Now, hopefully for the last time, this short snip should show you the authority that the Church herself places upon Trent's catechism, and that it contains explanations which are clear. As such, you should have no trouble understanding and accepting what we've been saying against a BOD and the EENS dogma.
The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it..............
When you read what is written in the catechism as it is written, you will learn that when it states that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance, that it puts it that way to teach us that the sacrament is a necessity to have our sins forgiven.
Hope this helps.
-
You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.
FYI the Council is *thee* authority and for additional explanation I posted the link and quote from Trent's catechism.
There is no other higher authority - unless perhaps you would like for me to quote from Scripture. Would that make you happy?
Try to avoid getting caught up in the whole "the Church must submit to the Fathers" mentality - the Fathers are not "the Church" because the Fathers willingly submit to the Judgement of "the Church" - try to always remember that.
Now, hopefully for the last time, this short snip should show you the authority that the Church herself places upon Trent's catechism, and that it contains explanations which are clear. As such, you should have no trouble understanding and accepting what we've been saying against a BOD and the EENS dogma.
The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it..............
When you read what is written in the catechism as it is written, you will learn that when it states that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance, that it puts it that way to teach us that the sacrament is a necessity to have our sins forgiven.
Hope this helps.
Again, you're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. You can't quote the catechism to refute the catechism. Anyway, you clowns have been fighting AGAINST the Roman Catechism for years, dismissing it as "not infallible." Now you've found a translation by the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul that you think is the "real" translation, found amongst other modernist writers.
22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.
23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.
24. VI. Since it is a fact that in these days adults need instruction no less than the young, all pastors and those having the care of souls shall explain the Catechism to the people in a plain and simple style adapted to the intelligence of their hearers. This shall be carried out on all holy days of obligation, at such time as is most convenient for the people, but not during the same hour when the children are instructed, and this instruction must be in addition to the usual homily on the Gospel which is delivered at the parochial Mass on Sundays and holy days. The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.
-
Those of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads. Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted. As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion. We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error. As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along. I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these. They'll know the truth at their judgment.
-
Those of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads. Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted. As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion. We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error. As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along. I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these. They'll know the truth at their judgment.
Except Ladislaus has found NO authority who has ever noticed these grave errors being taught by the Church for centuries. He has condemned others for NOT doing their own theology, like he has. Ladi believes he is more intelligent than all others who came before him, thus his judgments and theology are infallible. The truth is that Ladislaus can't even have a theological opinion, let alone dismiss those who have true theological opinions.
-
You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.
FYI the Council is *thee* authority and for additional explanation I posted the link and quote from Trent's catechism.
There is no other higher authority - unless perhaps you would like for me to quote from Scripture. Would that make you happy?
Try to avoid getting caught up in the whole "the Church must submit to the Fathers" mentality - the Fathers are not "the Church" because the Fathers willingly submit to the Judgement of "the Church" - try to always remember that.
Now, hopefully for the last time, this short snip should show you the authority that the Church herself places upon Trent's catechism, and that it contains explanations which are clear. As such, you should have no trouble understanding and accepting what we've been saying against a BOD and the EENS dogma.
The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it..............
When you read what is written in the catechism as it is written, you will learn that when it states that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance, that it puts it that way to teach us that the sacrament is a necessity to have our sins forgiven.
Hope this helps.
Again, you're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. You can't quote the catechism to refute the catechism. Anyway, you clowns have been fighting AGAINST the Roman Catechism for years, dismissing it as "not infallible." Now you've found a translation by the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul that you think is the "real" translation, found amongst other modernist writers.
22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.
23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.
24. VI. Since it is a fact that in these days adults need instruction no less than the young, all pastors and those having the care of souls shall explain the Catechism to the people in a plain and simple style adapted to the intelligence of their hearers. This shall be carried out on all holy days of obligation, at such time as is most convenient for the people, but not during the same hour when the children are instructed, and this instruction must be in addition to the usual homily on the Gospel which is delivered at the parochial Mass on Sundays and holy days. The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.
Sorry SJB but you are hilarious LOL. You are using the wrong version you nitwit. Use the link I gave you, otherwise you will be using a NO translation by the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul like the one you're using above.
Also, FYI, the catechism teaches the same thing as the Council of Trent - thats why they teach the same thing - no one is comparing a catechism with a catechism.
I hope you never stop posting here because even years from now, people will learn much from your posts. Yep, as long as they learn not to be as ignorant as you, they will have learned something.
-
Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?
Are you really that stupid, Mr. "AS WRITTEN"?
The fact that sins are cancelled by perfect contrition doesn't diminish or deny the need for a Sacramental Confession. The Sacrament is a benefit to all, yet God's Grace is not bound by the Sacraments.
Who says it's a fact besides you and LOT and other sacrament despisers?
See if any of this makes sense to you. If not, try to read it as it is written, not what you want to make it say for a change - ok? If you still don't get it, we'll keep trying till you do get it.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.
Pay attention to what Trent teaches regarding Perfect Contrition.........
Hence the- Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.
Trent's catechism continues:
The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance
Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.
It goes on:
Necessity Of Confession
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
Here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
The quote I used came from YOUR post. Isn't it taken from the link you provided?
-
Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?
Are you really that stupid, Mr. "AS WRITTEN"?
The fact that sins are cancelled by perfect contrition doesn't diminish or deny the need for a Sacramental Confession. The Sacrament is a benefit to all, yet God's Grace is not bound by the Sacraments.
Who says it's a fact besides you and LOT and other sacrament despisers?
See if any of this makes sense to you. If not, try to read it as it is written, not what you want to make it say for a change - ok? If you still don't get it, we'll keep trying till you do get it.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.
Pay attention to what Trent teaches regarding Perfect Contrition.........
Hence the- Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.
Trent's catechism continues:
The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance
Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.
It goes on:
Necessity Of Confession
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
Here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
The quote I used came from YOUR post. Isn't it taken from the link you provided?
Your quote is not from my link.
-
Your quoting the wrong post.
You're the only one who has provided any quotes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
-
Your quoting the wrong post.
You're the only one who has provided any quotes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
This quote from you is not from my link:
22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.
23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.
24. VI. Since it is a fact that in these days adults need instruction no less than the young, all pastors and those having the care of souls shall explain the Catechism to the people in a plain and simple style adapted to the intelligence of their hearers. This shall be carried out on all holy days of obligation, at such time as is most convenient for the people, but not during the same hour when the children are instructed, and this instruction must be in addition to the usual homily on the Gospel which is delivered at the parochial Mass on Sundays and holy days. The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.
Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.
You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.
Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.
You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.
You still don't get it. Must be all the G-L trash that takes up all the room in your pea brain. Why not read Catholic teaching instead of the crap you've been reading?
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.
Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.
You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.
You still don't get it. Must be all the G-L trash that takes up all the room in your pea brain. Why not read Catholic teaching instead of the crap you've been reading?
I've posted all sorts of Catholic teaching and orthodox sources and you reject everything not originating in your own tiny pea-sized brain.
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.
Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.
You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.
You still don't get it. Must be all the G-L trash that takes up all the room in your pea brain. Why not read Catholic teaching instead of the crap you've been reading?
I've posted all sorts of Catholic teaching and orthodox sources and you reject everything not originating in your own tiny pea-sized brain.
Yes but SJB, everything you post contradicts magisterial teachings and has teachings which make people despise the sacraments just like you. So you really should stop posting those things as they are not only not Catholic, they are anti-Catholic. Try and remember that.
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.
Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.
You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.
You still don't get it. Must be all the G-L trash that takes up all the room in your pea brain. Why not read Catholic teaching instead of the crap you've been reading?
I've posted all sorts of Catholic teaching and orthodox sources and you reject everything not originating in your own tiny pea-sized brain.
Yes but SJB, everything you post contradicts magisterial teachings and has teachings which make people despise the sacraments just like you. So you really should stop posting those things as they are not only not Catholic, they are anti-Catholic. Try and remember that.
You are a complete idiot. I've posted things that ARE Catholic teaching. When I post an encyclical, you dismiss it.
You have an anti-Catholic mindset, to put it in the best light possible.
-
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm
Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.
So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.
Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.
You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.
You still don't get it. Must be all the G-L trash that takes up all the room in your pea brain. Why not read Catholic teaching instead of the crap you've been reading?
I've posted all sorts of Catholic teaching and orthodox sources and you reject everything not originating in your own tiny pea-sized brain.
Yes but SJB, everything you post contradicts magisterial teachings and has teachings which make people despise the sacraments just like you. So you really should stop posting those things as they are not only not Catholic, they are anti-Catholic. Try and remember that.
You are a complete idiot. I've posted things that ARE Catholic teaching. When I post an encyclical, you dismiss it.
You have an anti-Catholic mindset, to put it in the best light possible.
No, no - I'm an idiot with an internet connection and time on my hands, remember?
I am pretty sure today was the first time I remember you posting an encyclical - but you still do not get the clue so I will try to 'splain it for you.
Pope St. Pius X was referring to the very same catechism that is on that link I gave you. The one that teaches the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. The one that does not teach a BOD.
He was not referring to a catechism that teaches a BOD or universal salvation like Fenton or G-L.
Certainly you understand better this time.
-
There SJB goes again calling people idiots. I first noticed that he does that a lot when he called me a simpleton. Then I started paying attention and I soon found out that I was not alone and that SJB calls many people idiots. I have noticed SJB calling people idiots more than the rest of the forum combined. I wonder if anyone takes him seriously when he insults people so often.
-
He is just frustrated. Soon as he accepts the truth and starts doing the Catholic thing by defending the sacraments instead of belittling them, he'll figure it out.
Seems like he spent many years indoctrinating himself with the likes of Fenton and G-L - unfortunately, that's not something most people can hope to shake off overnight. Seems as though it's as tough to kick as heroin - but first he's gotta want to kick it.
-
There SJB goes again calling people idiots. I first noticed that he does that a lot when he called me a simpleton. Then I started paying attention and I soon found out that I was not alone and that SJB calls many people idiots. I have noticed SJB calling people idiots more than the rest of the forum combined. I wonder if anyone takes him seriously when he insults people so often.
If you are honest, you'd look and see that I've been calling these guys out as idiots the past several days and on this particular issue. I don't typically do this, but they deserve it, IMO.
You are free to disagree, but at least be man enough to be honest.
-
I'm going to suggest to Matthew that all members on CI have to post their age and gender.
These SJB and Lover of Truth could be 20 year olds writing from their parents computer from the basement in their underwear. This SJB last night when I looked at the CI Church in Crisis section had the last posting in 9 BOD threads! Post anything on a BOD thread and he posts a sentence within seconds.
I have him on hide, so I don't read what he posts. But every time I checked before it was a sentence.
-
If you are honest, you'd look and see that I've been calling these guys out as idiots the past several days and on this particular issue. I don't typically do this, but they deserve it, IMO.
You are free to disagree, but at least be man enough to be honest.
Now you call me a liar and not man enough, even worse than a simpleton. Gee thanks. I have been paying attention to your posts and am speaking the truth. I guess the insulter forgets his insults quicker than the one who is insulted.
-
If you are honest, you'd look and see that I've been calling these guys out as idiots the past several days and on this particular issue. I don't typically do this, but they deserve it, IMO.
You are free to disagree, but at least be man enough to be honest.
Now you call me a liar and not man enough, even worse than a simpleton. Gee thanks. I have been paying attention to your posts and am speaking the truth. I guess the insulter forgets his insults quicker than the one who is insulted.
No, I assumed you didn't look back far enough before YOU accused me of a history of "insults." Not a liar, just inaccurate.
-
You heroin BODers strain a gnat and swallow a herd of camels. What do gnats like these you are knit-picking on matter when:
Notice that the three threads that I started are about Heroin BOD, the belief that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor to be baptized (of course), nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
I've been doing only that for quite some time, and these people like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.
They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion", can be saved even if they has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
You heroin BODers strain a gnat and swallow a herd of camels. What do gnats like these you are knit-picking on matter when:
Notice that the three threads that I started are about Heroin BOD, the belief that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor to be baptized (of course), nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
I've been doing only that for quite some time, and these people like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.
They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion", can be saved even if they has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.
Bowler,
Can you provide a source which defines for your modernist term, "Heroin BOD"?
-
10 minutes (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29234&min=145#p0)
Blah, blah, blah...
You can't receive virtual Communion.
You can't receive virtual Confession.
You can't receive virtual grace.
bowler, it's "nit-picking" not "knit-picking."
.
-
Thank you.
OK, praise and venerate AS Creator of the world. This is quite alright. What he's saying is the NATURAL praise and veneration God in a natural state (i.e. in His condition as Creator, which can be known through natural reason) ... as opposed to revealed supernatural state of God.
I don't know if this is accurate or if its consistent with the latin there but supposedly this is what Pope Gregory VII said:
God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4) and none to perish is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God men love other men, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves (cf. Mt. 7.14). We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For as the apostle says: "He is our peace who has made us both one." (Eph. 2.14) Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtues... God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth.
That last sentence is troubling as well.
The bosom of the Holy Patriarch Abraham is only to be found through the Catholic Church, I really don't see what is troubling with the statement unless you were out on a witch hunt. We should always pray that God may lead all men to the abode of true happiness which is with God in heaven, in the previous sentences he clearly states what the teaching of the Church says. He is not insinuating that they are performing supernatural acts, but simply praising natural virtue which is perfectly fine. We can be able to be grateful if a Muslim man crosses the old lady across the street etc...
-
You heroin BODers strain a gnat and swallow a herd of camels. What do gnats like these you are knit-picking on matter when:
Notice that the three threads that I started are about Heroin BOD, the belief that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor to be baptized (of course), nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
I've been doing only that for quite some time, and these people like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.
They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion", can be saved even if they has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.
Bowler,
Can you provide a source which defines for your modernist term, "Heroin BOD"?
:rolleyes:
-
The Lane vs. Sungenis debate (http://www.sedevacantist.com/2006_debate/sungenis_debate_01.html) was better. Sungenis was better than Fastiggi, although Bp. Sanborn may have been better than Lane.
-
The Lane vs. Sungenis debate (http://www.sedevacantist.com/2006_debate/sungenis_debate_01.html) was better. Sungenis was better than Fastiggi, although Bp. Sanborn may have been better than Lane.
Yes, I agree.
Thanks for posting this!
-
The Lane vs. Sungenis debate (http://www.sedevacantist.com/2006_debate/sungenis_debate_01.html) was better. Sungenis was better than Fastiggi, although Bp. Sanborn may have been better than Lane.
Yes, I agree.
All we need now is a Bp. Sanborn vs. Sungenis debate. :popcorn:
-
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.
Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.
So are quasi-members inside the Church?
-
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.
Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.
So are quasi-members inside the Church?
Pope Pius XII defined membership in Mystici Corporis Christi, which is based on Bellarmine's concept of visibility. I believe Bellarmine says some are related to the Church by internal union, as he also states that secret heretics are still members, yet only by external union.
Obviously, a formal catechumen is visibly in the process of entering the Church, which makes him a specific case.
-
Check out Fraghi's De Membris Ecclesiæ (http://sedevacantist.org/books/Fraghi%20d-De%20Membris%20Ecclesiae-%20Fraghi%201937.pdf).
-
Father Cekada and others (like SJB) keep proposing this veritable "infallibility of theologians" nonsense to propose as traditionally Catholic any modernistic ideas and heresies that were held by most theologians before Vatican II. Father Cekada has more or less stated that things commonly taught by (a majority of modernist-infected) theologians before Vatican II are essentially part of the ordinary universal magisterium and are infallible. That's just utterly ridiculous.
Pope Pius IX proposed this "nonsense" as well, back in December of 1863. Pope Pius VI did so implicitly, back in August of 1794 (by denying that the Church had obscured the Gospel, and by defending the opinions of the theological schools not condemned by the Holy See, which obviously included BoD).
-
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".
Not so fast; a true word for word contradiction of the dogma would be "Outside the Church there IS salvation".
To me that title sounds as if he is going to DEAL about the salvation of those who are outside the Church, as in, what they would have to do to be saved, since they are OUTSIDE.
How else would you title an article that would deal with this issue? Think about that. Probably any other title would sound similar and appear "heretical". Or are you saying that those who are outside the Church can't do anything at all to reach salvation? That if you presently ARE outside the Church (not DIE outside the Church), you are 100% guaranteed to be damned?
-
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.
I wish they had titled it "An Explanation of the Dogma, "Outside the Church, No Salvation." If they had done this, there would be no scandal, and there would be in need for this conversation.
Msgr. Fenton wrote to correct some theologians who were using imprecise terminology. In my opinion, this imprecision led to what is commonly called, "Feeneyism." What we have now are new ideas that even Fr. Feeney would be shocked about.
All of this could have been avoided if Catholics faithfully learned from and obeyed Pope Pius XII.
Imprecise terminology used by orthodox theologians was indeed part of the problem for the likes of Feeney and the Feeneyites of his day. I do not know many feeneyites today that were as knowledgeable as Father Feeney and who could read Latin and make proper distinctions as he could. This is why he came up with people can die justified without being saved novelty. It is because he read and understood Trent differently and more correctly than the current Feeneyites do. He could not deny that Trent taught that baptism of desire justifies.