So, let me ask you again, LoT, is it possible that Confucius could have been saved?

Confucius died in 479BC so his case is somewhat irrelevant to the controversy.  The specifics with regard to what constituted a salvific faith would be different for him than those of us who died after the foundation of the Church and the institution of the sacrament of baptism.  Are you claiming that the Holy Office has made an infallible determination that Confucius died an infidel?  How could they be sure that he didn't repent on his deathbed?  Maybe the witnesses suppressed the knowledge of his repentence?  If the Holy Office has made such a determination then I submit.  But do you believe this to be the case, Ladislaus?  If you do submit to the Holy Office, do you also submit to the Catechism of St. Pius X which taught BOD?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Arvinger

Myrna and Amakusa, you are both missing the point.

I've been trying to make this same distinction with Myrna for years now, but it just doesn't seem to sink in.  Anyone who affirms that someone must be a Catholic in order to be saved is "judging souls".

The difference between Feeneyism and myself would be to put the emphasis on the teaching of the Church that God alone has the last word of who is Catholic.  I do not deny EENS but have confidence in the Mercy of God; was taught way before you were born, that God knows when it is the best time to give His saving grace.

Feeneyism puts the emphasis on the teaching of EENS and depends on what he perceives the person is at the moment of their death, PERIOD.    I call that Pride!

Myrna, have you read my previous posts? No Feeneyites I'm aware of (except for the Dimonds, but they do not really represent the position of Fr Feeney) "depend on what they perceive the person is at the moment of death", they simply point out what are the objective requirements for salvation. No one judges whether a specific soul fulfilled these requirements or not. You keep confusing objective requirements for salvation with judging an individual.

Quote from: Ladislaus

So, let me ask you again, LoT, is it possible that Confucius could have been saved?

Confucius died in 479BC so his case is somewhat irrelevant to the controversy.  The specifics with regard to what constituted a salvific faith would be different for him than those of us who died after the foundation of the Church and the institution of the sacrament of baptism.  Are you claiming that the Holy Office has made an infallible determination that Confucius died an infidel?  How could they be sure that he didn't repent on his deathbed?  Maybe the witnesses suppressed the knowledge of his repentence?  If the Holy Office has made such a determination then I submit.  But do you believe this to be the case, Ladislaus?  If you do submit to the Holy Office, do you also submit to the Catechism of St. Pius X which taught BOD?

Here I agree with Clemens Maria and disagree with Ladislaus - Confucius is irrelevant to this discussion, because when he died the New Covenant was not instituted yet, therefore he could have been saved, as other Gentiles who were not included in the Old Covenant, by following the natural law.

Here I agree with Clemens Maria and disagree with Ladislaus - Confucius is irrelevant to this discussion, because when he died the New Covenant was not instituted yet, therefore he could have been saved, as other Gentiles who were not included in the Old Covenant, by following the natural law.

I am pretty sure that belief in the Messiah to come and strict fulfillment of the Mosaic Law were still necessary for salvation under the Old Testament. I doubt someone like Confucius could have been member of God's chosen people on earth and be in the Limbo of the Just by the time Christ Our Lord opened Heaven for us, gentiles. I agree we are not allowed to make a judgment about the eternal fate of a particular, individual soul; but we can surely form a general conclusion according to what God has already  revealed. And God has revealed that BOTH, Faith and Baptism, are needed for salvation.  

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: Arvinger

The point is that Novus Ordites and many Traditionalists believe that you can die as an infidel and still be saved through "implicit Baptism of Desire" or through believing in Rewarder God, which runs contrary to EENS and all teachings on BoD from Saints and Doctors of the Church.  

This Traditionalist doesn't believer in any one-sided "Rewarder" God (only heard that phrase on this forum, by the way, never in any authentic Catholic theology).  The entire point of Christ the Just Judge is that Mercy is predicated upon Justice, and Justice is the manifestation of Truth.  Homage to a different God or gods is not Truth, because there is exactly One God, not a multiplicity of them.  This is absolutely and objectively true.  Jesus Christ would deny His own nature, should he trade worship of "replacement" gods for Himself.  And He cannot deny His nature; that is an impossibility.

I think that perhaps you misunderstand our "Rewarder God" expression.  It's shorthand for the notion that one need not have explicit belief in Jesus and the Holy Trinity in order to be saved, but that it's sufficient to believe in the existence of a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked.  So we use "Rewarder God" for the sake of brevity, not with the notion that God only rewards but does not punish.

No.  I understood it.

Quote from: ascent

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.)

The verse number is a typo, and your provided link has the same typo in the copy of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The correct verse is actually Matthew 18:17. Douay Rheims link

 

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.)

The encyclical references MK. 16:16:

The encyclical also references Mt 15:17, which is wrong. It's a typo. It should read Mt 18:17. That's the point I was making.

Quote

The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to St. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

I verified this to be correct from other sources.

My point of addressing the Mark 16:16 verse is that the encyclical, and your original quoting it, omits the essential Scriptural words "and is baptized" in that same verse.

I could agree with you if I knew for certain that the soul in question died an infidel, but the truth is only God knows that.

So you can't bring yourself to agree with the Holy Office.  It's not about whether you agree with ME, Myrna.  We are forbidden to speculate that anyone who has died as an infidel can be saved.

You know full well that this is a question that hasn't been decided yet and even St. Alphonsus himself says so. He says belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is the "more common or truer opinion" but he says the other opinion is allowed as well.

Hogwash.  He got it wrong.  And the Holy Office under St. Pius X forbids Catholics to speculate about the possible salvation of infidels and commands that they consider them "damned".  Holy Office overrules St. Alphonsus.

I am pretty sure that belief in the Messiah to come and strict fulfillment of the Mosaic Law were still necessary for salvation under the Old Testament.

You would be correct.  Most of the Church Fathers held that a belief in the promise of the coming Messiah was necessary for salvation.