Author Topic: Faith in Christ Necessary for Salvation -- DOGMA (Read 8558 times)

Arvinger · « **Reply #90 on:** June 13, 2016, 08:50:24 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Arvinger
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.

Your disagreement is not with me, then, but with the Holy Office under St. Pius X.

Not at all, I am not saying that the Holy Office was wrong or that you are wrong, I am simply saying that Confucius lived before the coming of Christ and institution of the New Covenant, therefore it is not the best example to discuss soteriology in the New Covenant.

But of course, apart from that, I agree that explicit faith in Christ and the sacrament of baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation in the New Covenant - I defend this truth in EENS subforum regularly.

Arvinger · « **Reply #91 on:** June 13, 2016, 08:55:05 AM »

Quote from: Amakusa

I understand your point, but that's a fuzzy discussion indeed, since the "traditionalists" and "novus ordites" you are mentioning just mean that when someone has the will to know the truth, God enlightens his soul and he can be saved.

In other words you are simply denouncing the way these priests try to explain the redemption of those persons. Rather pointless...

You are wrong - many (probably even most) of the Novus Ordites believe that you can be saved without God enlightening your soul about the Catholic faith - they believe that Buddhist, Muslim etc. can be saved "if they are sincere in their beliefs" or "if they are invincibly ignorant". Many Traditional Catholic priests teach the same thing - Bishop Fellay explicitly stated that Hindu who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church can be in the state of grace and be saved "if he lives according to his consicence". In other words, unconverted infidels can be saved if they are sincere in their beliefs. That is one of the most pernicious errors of our times which destroys not only evangelization, but in a long term the belief in necessity of being Catholic.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #92 on:** June 13, 2016, 02:15:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: MyrnaM
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.

The truth be known I never speculate I just pray for souls who will die today, no matter who they are, and I leave everything else up to God.

Our Lady said, "most souls fall into Hell because there is no one to pray for them".

Quote

" just mean that when someone has the will to know the truth, God enlightens his soul and he can be saved".

Our Lady said, "most souls fall into Hell because there is no one to pray for them".

Disputaciones · « **Reply #93 on:** June 13, 2016, 11:44:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Disputaciones
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.

Again, you also know he wasn't the only one who said this. There are many other famous theologians and saints that can be produced saying the same thing.

You would have us believe, like the Dimond nutters, that every single theologian working under the supervision of the Church has been teaching heresy for centuries, with the Popes being oblivious to all this. It's ridiculous.

The very idea was condemned in the Bull Auctorem Fidei actually.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #94 on:** June 14, 2016, 08:01:57 AM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Again, you also know he wasn't the only one who said this. There are many other famous theologians and saints that can be produced saying the same thing.

No saints, no Doctors. Sorry. Perhaps a couple famous Jesuit theologians (aka Suarez), but that's about it. You exaggerate the scope of this error.

On the contrary, the Church Fathers unanimously agreed that knowledge of and faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity were required for salvation. In fact, every Catholic for 1600 years believed this.

And I don't care what a few Jesuit theologians claim. Here you have the Holy Office stating that Catholics are not permitted to speculate about the salvation of infidels. Period. And the Holy Office trumps these "famous theologians" hands down.

Quote

You would have us believe, like the Dimond nutters, that every single theologian working under the supervision of the Church has been teaching heresy for centuries, with the Popes being oblivious to all this. It's ridiculous.

What are you blabbering about? "Every single theologian"? Msgr. Fenton stated that even in his day it was the majority theological opinion that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity/Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

Continue to ignore the Holy Office under St. Pius X.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #95 on:** June 14, 2016, 10:22:16 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Amakusa
The Church teaches that it is forbidden to claim that Confucius was saved; but she also teaches that is is forbidden to claim that he was damned... (since we don't know whether his soul was enlightened or not by divine grace before he died).

The debates of the feeneyites are pointless.

Absolutely false.

Quote from: Holy Office under St. Pius X
In answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

We must answer that they are damned. So your allegation is patently false. Stop lying about this. We cannot even speculate that they COULD HAVE been saved. So, in other words, when people like Bishop Fellay, and in fact 99% of all "Traditional" Catholics, claim that some infidel (Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) COULD be saved, they're speaking contrary to the mind of the Church. So it sounds to me like it's only the "Feeneyites" who are consistent with the mind of Holy Mother Church on this subject. Oh, I would LOVE for you Cushingites to go back in time and claim to Pope Eugene IV and the Fathers who gave us the teaching of Cantate Domino that all infidels are damned and tell them that they can be saved. You'd be burning at the stake, rightfully so, before you even finished the sentence.

And everyone here on CI ripping those of us who state that all infidels are damned for being "judgmental", I guess you can go ahead now and tear into St. Pius X. In fact, you are defying this directive from the Holy Office by claiming that these COULD be saved (somehow). Got that, LoT? You've spent TONS of virtual ink here on CI doing exactly that, claiming that infidels COULD be saved. You need to repent of this grave sin.

American Catholics cringe at hearing this order from the Holy Office that they, "must answer that those who die as infidels are damned", because if they did this, they would lose their non-Catholic friends, the majority of the population around them. This does not happen in a Catholic culture like in Italy, Spain, South America, France. In those places, everyone knows (knew at Pius X's time at least) that all infidels, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox are damned. They also know that all fallen away Catholics who die in mortal sin are damned too. The person being told that they will be damned knows it too, for they have been hearing it all their lives.

Cantarella · « **Reply #96 on:** June 14, 2016, 10:52:05 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradican

American Catholics cringe at hearing this order from the Holy Office that they, "must answer that those who die as infidels are damned", because if they did this, they would lose their non-Catholic friends, the majority of the population around them. This does not happen in a Catholic culture like in Italy, Spain, South America, France. In those places, everyone knows (knew at Pius X's time at least) that all infidels, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox are damned. They also know that all fallen away Catholics who die in mortal sin are damned too. The person being told that they will be damned knows it too, for they have been hearing it all their lives.

This is true. That is why the notion of salvific invincible ignorance and denial of EENS are closely connected to the heresy of Americanism condemned in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae by Pope Leo XIII. The "Baptism of Desire" was never an issue to EENS until the Americanists made it one. Americanism destroys EENS because Catholicism in its purest form cannot survive in such a pluralist Jєω-driven society such as the U.S.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #97 on:** June 16, 2016, 02:28:51 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Ladislaus
No exceptions. I have NEVER seen a single quote from ANYONE before about 1600 indicating that any Catholic believed otherwise. That makes it a dogma by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church.

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. Surely he should have known better than anyone if this belief was indeed dogma, don't you think? And yet all the while he said what he said. It is not heresy.

Sorry to say so but you're staring to sound like the Dimond nutters, who make up theology by themselves as they go along, and declare this or that to be "heretical" on their own authority.

Nice post! :applause:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #98 on:** June 16, 2016, 02:30:36 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Disputaciones
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.

Again, you also know he wasn't the only one who said this. There are many other famous theologians and saints that can be produced saying the same thing.

You would have us believe, like the Dimond nutters, that every single theologian working under the supervision of the Church has been teaching heresy for centuries, with the Popes being oblivious to all this. It's ridiculous.

The very idea was condemned in the Bull Auctorem Fidei actually.

Well-stated. :cheers:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #99 on:** June 16, 2016, 02:32:37 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

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?

Another person who submits to the Church rather than his own intellect. :applause: