Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2015, 08:45:16 AM
-
It was the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH FATHERS that faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation. Consequently, this was clearly part of the Deposit of Revelation and a DOGMA. To say otherwise is HERESY. Anyone who says that Muslims, Jєωs, pagans, or any manner of infidel can be saved DENY CATHOLIC DOGMA. Tragically, most "Traditional Catholics" believe this today. While I do not accuse anyone of formal heresy, it's heresy nonetheless. THIS IS THE CORE HERESY OF VATICAN II, and it's also the core heresy held by most Traditional Catholics. I am dedicating this thread to citing Church Fathers who taught this. EVERY CATHOLIC needs to read this and then honestly try to answer the question of whether he holds the faith of the Fathers. I do not put this in the "Feeneyism" section because this has nothing to do with the question of Baptism of Desire; I am prescinding entirely from that discussion.
-
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Saint Peter and Saint Paul (died A.D. 107): "Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not attain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private person, a master or a servant, a man or a woman." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)
-
Saint Justin Martyr (died A.D. 165): "But there is no other way than this, - to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the rest to live sinless lives. [...] Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall not be saved." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jєω.)
-
Saint Martial of Limoges (died A.D. 165): "All who do not confess Christ to be true God shall go into eternal fire."
-
Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258): "For whereas in the Gospels, and in the epistles of the Apostles, the name of Christ is alleged for the remission of sins; it is not in such a way as that the Son alone, without the Father, or against the Father, can be of advantage to anybody; but that it might be shown to the Jєωs, who boasted as to their having the Father, that the Father would profit them nothing, unless they believed on the Son whom He had sent. For they who know God the Father the Creator, ought also to know Christ the Son, lest they flatter and applaud themselves about the Father alone, without the acknowledgement of His Son, who also said, "No man cometh to the Father but by me." But He, the same, sets forth that it is the knowledge of the two that saves, when he says, "And this is life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." Therefore, from the preaching and the testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be known first, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together.[/b] [...]"
-
Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): "Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth - because there are some remote nations still (although it is said that they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way, - what must human nature do, or what has it done - for it has either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished - but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jєωs received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ." (On Nature and Grace)
[EXPLICITLY REJECTS the teaching that belief in God and accomplishing His will uninstructed with faith in Christ can be salvific, the so-called 17th century Rewarder God heresy. Also explicitly rejects Suprema Haec]
-
Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): "For if, according to the word of truth, no one is delivered from the condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through faith in Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they shall not deliver themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel of Christ, on the ground that "faith cometh by hearing," how much less shall they deliver themselves who shall say, "We have not received perseverance!" [...] thou mightest persevere if thou wouldest. And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, [...] are not made to differ from that mass which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation." (On Rebuke and Grace)
[EXPLICITLY REJECTS "salvation by invincible ignorance"]
-
Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): "They who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because they did not receive, at the time when they are unable on account of youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. "For all have sinned" - whether in Adam or in themselves - "and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23.)"" (On Nature and Grace)
[EXPLICITLY REJECTS "salvation by invincible ignorance"]
-
Saint Prosper of Aquitaine, A.D. 463: “...none of the infidels is counted among the elect....” (The Call of All Nations)
-
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jєωs, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."
-
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): "But the Blessed Apostle says: "How then are they to call upon Him in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? but how are they to hear, without preaching?" Grace, then, is not given to all; for certainly they cannot be participants in that grace, who are not believers; nor can they believe if it is found that the preaching of the faith has never come to them at all."
[EXPLICITLY REJECTS "salvation by invincible ignorance"]
-
Pope Pelagius II, A.D. 578-590: "We can no more pray for a deceased infidel than we can for the devil, since they are condemned to the same eternal and irrevocable damnation." (Dialogues, IV)
-
Alcuin of York (died A.D. 780): "He then gives the reason why he who believes not is condemned, viz. because he believeth not on the name of the only begotten Son of God. For in this name alone is there salvation."
-
Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216: ""One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)
-
Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P., Doctor, (died A.D. 1274): "If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica II, II, 10, 1.)
[EXPLICITLY REJECTS "salvation by invincible ignorance"]
-
Saint Vincent Ferrer (died A.D. 1419): "One who dies a Jєω will be damned."
-
Blessed Juliana of Norwich (died A.D. 1423): "I knew in my faith that the Jєωs were accursed and condemned without end, except those who were converted." (Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love)
-
Pope Paul III (A.D. 1534-1549) who convened the Council of Trent: "... and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ...."
-
Great thread. It's remarkable how this has fallen into confusion. Shortly before Vatican II, the majority of theologians taught it, as Fenton informs us. Today, almost every Catholic believes pagans, Jєωs, Muslims and infidels can be saved without the Catholic Faith, which must include explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”
it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even of those matters which must be known by necessity of means ... who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved
‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.
This is also attested to by the majority of theologians, including Saints and Doctors, besides Popes and Fathers, before Vatican II. This immemorial Tradition is also contained in the Athanasian Creed, which has been expressly promulgated and reaffirmed by several Popes.
Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity ... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Finally, so unimpeachable is this teaching, that even though Thomistic precision like "means" and "precept" used in the earlier Papal texts have for the most part vanished in the new Church, the new Catechism still contains this, under "The necessity of faith", 161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"43
Is it, then, a necessary means, or only a precept that has been commanded? It's not clear. At any rate, even the new Church does not absolutely preclude the true teaching. It's amazing, then, how some posters on this forum have refused even to tolerate the teaching that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation as a means, declaring it to be practically heresy, though as we have seen here and on other threads, it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, therefore of Tradition, of the Scriptures and of the Church.
-
Saint Francis Xavier, S.J. (died A.D. 1552): "Many, many people hereabouts [the East] are not becoming Christians for one reason only: there is nobody to make them Christians. Again and again I have thought of going round the universities of Europe, especially Paris, and everywhere crying out like a madman, riveting the attention of those with more learning than charity: "What a tragedy: how many souls are being shut out of heaven and falling into hell, thanks to you!" (Letter to Saint Ignatius Loyola, S.J.)
-
Pope Saint Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572), Roman Catehcism: "Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, ..." (Part 1 article 9 section 3)
-
Saint Robert Bellarmine S.J., Doctor, (died A.D. 1621): "...for the infidels and bad Christians, there is eternal death full of every misery and deprived of every good."
-
Pope Clement XI (A.D. 1700-1721). Response of the Holy Office: (D. 1349a): "the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means ... are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation."
-
Pope Leo XII, A.D. 1823-1829: "...[W]e are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth by which we must be saved." (Ubi Primum)
-
Pope Pius VIII, A.D. 1829-1830: "Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned." (Traditi Humilitati)
-
Venerable William Joseph Chaminade (died 1850): "Since our lamentable fall in the garden of Eden, faith in Jesus Christ has been indispensably necessary to salvation, so that whoever has not believed in Him has not been saved." (Mary in our Christ-Life. Bruce, Milwaukee, 1961.)
-
St. John Bosco (died A.D. 1888): "If you die as an unbeliever, you will be damned and lost."
-
Pope Saint Pius X, A.D. 1903-1914: "Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."" (Acerbo Nimis)
-
Pope Saint Pius X, A.D. 1903-1914, The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (1907) in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."
-
Great thread. It's remarkable how this has fallen into confusion. Shortly before Vatican II, the majority of theologians taught it, as Fenton informs us. Today, almost every Catholic believes pagans, Jєωs, Muslims and infidels can be saved without the Catholic Faith, which must include explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
Indeed, Nishant. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have both explicitly said so. It's tragic.
So, the point of this thread is to show that there was unanimous consensus among the Church Fathers and EVERY Catholic, Pope, Doctor, and saint for 1600 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation. 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. I haven't even cited the Athanasian Creed.
It is in fact from THIS ERROR and THIS ERROR ALONE that all the problems with Vatican II derive.
-
It's amazing, then, how some posters on this forum have refused even to tolerate the teaching that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation as a means, declaring it to be practically heresy, though as we have seen here and on other threads, it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, therefore of Tradition, of the Scriptures and of the Church.
Yes, they typically label that belief "Feeneyism", which it most certainly is not. It's CATHOLICISM. Traditional Catholics have had their minds and their faith poisoned by the very Pelagian subjectivism which led to most of the problems with Vatican II. Yet the reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II. But these "errors and heresies" are NONE OTHER than the same ones that they themselves hold.
-
Yes, Ladislaus most Catholics have simply forgotten it, but undoubtedly in good faith, so a proper catechesis is necessary more than anything else. I know posters on this forum who previously had thought the Church teaches the other opinion and only had to hear the true teaching to embrace it gladly, like PereJoseph, for example. It would be great if all Catholics believed it today, and the lack of belief in it is one reason for the loss of missionary zeal, and opens up the broad path to indifferentism. Christ becomes for most modern Catholics no longer the only Savior of all, but just one way among many, since pagans can be saved. Christians always believed those who died as pagans were lost, even those who lacked nothing to be Christian other than hearing the Faith, that is why they, like St. Francis Xavier whom you cite, made every effort to labor at any cost to bring souls to the knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Fr. Jean Marc Rulleau, SSPX, mentions it was the teaching of St. Thomas that not only faith in God the rewarder is necessary but also at least in the Trinity and Incarnation, to have Catholic Faith and be saved. Fr. hαɾɾιson, who writes for the Remnant, also teaches an implicit faith doesn't suffice for salvation. These are the few traditional priests today who hold to what St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc held. Theologians who follow St. Alphonsus exactly on this question include Jone, Noldin, Prümmer, Tanquerey, Van Noort, McHugh & Callan and Merkelbach among others in favor of faith in the Trinity and Incarnation being necessary as a means. I've followed your other thread on Vatican II, there we will discuss whether a Protestant or Orthodox can be a "material heretic or schismatic". The question is what is the minimum necessary for justification, and so to enter, or remain in the Church, if baptized.
-Regarding the points on which explicit knowledge is required as the indispensable means of justification, this certainly extends to the belief that God exists and that He shows Himself the Rewarder of them that seek Him. This amount of belief is declared by St. Paul to be essential, if any one will please God. (Hebrews xi. 6) The Greek word translated Rewarder means literally the payer of wages: the "seeking" God is therefore the application to enter His service; and the absolute necessity of the knowledge specified will be readily understood, if any one is to earn a reward.So far there is universal agreement, and in fact the necessity that we have stated is not open to doubt, for Pope Innocent XI condemned the assertion that explicit belief that God rewards is not necessary (prop. 22; Denz. 1039).
There is a controversy whether St. Paul, in the passage quoted, intended to mention all that is necessary, or whether explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is required. At one time, a few writers were found to maintain that this explicit belief not only is necessary, but always has been so; this is now held by no one, but many followers of the Thomist school hold that it has been necessary since the revelation was brought by Christ, although under the Old Law it was not requisite. These found their opinion upon the language of Scripture, which frequently speaks of faith in Christ as the essential condition of salvation; and to believe in Christ means to believe that He is God and Man.
Some modern theologians have fallen into error, against the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors, because they have great difficulty in answering the objection of what happens to the invincibly ignorant pagan adult who has not heard of Christ. But St. Thomas, following the Fathers, already answered that if someone followed the natural law and sought to obey God and know and do His will, he would not fail to be enlightened by God about Christ.
-
Yes, Ladislaus most Catholics have simply forgotten it, but undoubtedly in good faith, so a proper catechesis is necessary more than anything else.
Yes and no, Nishant. When one sees the violent contempt for Father Feeney, it's usually from people who have a hostility towards the dogma EENS in general. Rarely does the vehemence have anything to do with BoD proper. They simply oppose the notion that Jєωs, Muslims, etc. cannot be saved. That always comes out when you scratch even a little beneath the surface. Father Cekada ADMITTED that he opposed "Feeneyism" because he had an aversion to the idea that those outside the Church could not be saved. And, most often, when people use the term "Feeneyism" they mean it to include those who believe that explicit faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation. So "good faith" really is a matter for the internal forum that I am not competent to decide, but I would guess that some are and some aren't in good faith. In the end, however, as I indicated before, I am not position to judge their dispositions, but I do hold explicit faith objectively to be dogma based on the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Luther was objectively heretical long before he was formally condemned. Father Feeney's emphasis was NEVER BoD per se, and it's not mine either; to me it's not a major issue (it's important IMO but not critical to maintaining Traditional ecclesiology and soteriology), and if you ask 99% of Feeneyites (not the Dimond types), they'll tell you the same thing. When I was at the SSPX seminary, one of the priest-professors actually held the explicit belief in Jesus and the Holy Trinity position (too bad there's no short-hand for this), and he was chided by Bishop Williamson for being "dangerously close to Feeneyism".
-
Traditional Catholics have had their minds and their faith poisoned by the very Pelagian subjectivism which led to most of the problems with Vatican II. Yet the reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II. But these "errors and heresies" are NONE OTHER than the same ones that they themselves hold.
Just my opinion...
I think that most "traditional" Catholics are only concerned with the Mass. It is obvious, to me anyway, that when speaking with most of these folks they lack an understanding of basic catechism. Most "trads" don't even have the slightest clue who Father Feeney is/was. If you happen to find a "trad" who has heard of Father Feeney, they automatically regurgitate the nonsense that they've heard from others (including priests, yes-even SSPX priests).
I think that there is a lot of good content and a good discussion being had here, but for most "trads", it's too far over their head, which is a shame.
I completely agree with this. Most Traditional Catholics were turned off by the Novus Ordo liturgical abuses. Perhaps they'll go as far as to have a correct aversion to the Novus Ordo heteropraxis (such as the Assissi meeting or whatnot) ... based on their sensus fidei. But they couldn't articulate the theological reasons for dissent. And, you know what, Catholic lay people have NEVER been expected to be theologians or to understand distinctions and whatnot. So the fault lies with the Bishops and priests. God will be less severe in judging confused lay people.
That's another problem I have with the modernist approach to EENS prevalent today. When the Church teaches "There's absolutely no salvation outside the Church.", people simply need to take that at face value, with the disposition of children. I teach my children that only Catholics can be saved, and they take that at face value, as meaning exactly what it says. For the "anti-Feeneyites" to claim that in order to "properly understand" the dogma one needs to be able to regurgitate five pages of distinctions and qualifications is absolutely repugnant to me, especially when the distinctions involve turning EENS into the OPPOSITE OF EENS, and they accuse US of "heresy" for not understanding that the Church meant to define the exact opposite of what it said. So if you believe that Muslims, Jєωs, pagans, heretics, and schismatics CANNOT be saved, then they consider you a "heretic", despite the fact that one of the dogmatic definitions SAID EXACTLY THAT. So when Traditional Bishops (Lefebvre and Fellay) talk about how Jєωs and Muslims CAN be saved, how is that not a SCANDAL against the faith and a source of confusion to Catholics? Archbishop Lefebvre made his comments in a book "Letter to Confused Catholics". So it doesn't confuse Catholics when the Church dogma reads "Jєωs/Muslims CANNOT be saved" to teach that Jєωs/Muslims CAN be saved? This confusion is completely diabolical. Our speech here needs to be "Yes, yes." and "No, no." When asked whether anyone other than a Catholic can be saved, the answer must be a simple, direct, unwavering, unqualified "NO"; not, "well, what this really means is, yes and no, and actually in the end yes." Holy Office under St. Pius X affirmed that when asked Catholics MUST respond that infidels cannot be saved. How many Traditional Catholics today obey this directive?
-
Traditional Catholics have had their minds and their faith poisoned by the very Pelagian subjectivism which led to most of the problems with Vatican II. Yet the reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II. But these "errors and heresies" are NONE OTHER than the same ones that they themselves hold.
Just my opinion...
I think that most "traditional" Catholics are only concerned with the Mass. It is obvious, to me anyway, that when speaking with most of these folks they lack an understanding of basic catechism. Most "trads" don't even have the slightest clue who Father Feeney is/was. If you happen to find a "trad" who has heard of Father Feeney, they automatically regurgitate the nonsense that they've heard from others (including priests, yes-even SSPX priests).
I think that there is a lot of good content and a good discussion being had here, but for most "trads", it's too far over their head, which is a shame.
I completely agree with this. Most Traditional Catholics were turned off by the Novus Ordo liturgical abuses. Perhaps they'll go as far as to have a correct aversion to the Novus Ordo heteropraxis (such as the Assissi meeting or whatnot) ... based on their sensus fidei. But they couldn't articulate the theological reasons for dissent. And, you know what, Catholic lay people have NEVER been expected to be theologians or to understand distinctions and whatnot. So the fault lies with the Bishops and priests. God will be less severe in judging confused lay people.
That's another problem I have with the modernist approach to EENS prevalent today. When the Church teaches "There's absolutely no salvation outside the Church.", people simply need to take that at face value, with the disposition of children. I teach my children that only Catholics can be saved, and they take that at face value, as meaning exactly what it says. For the "anti-Feeneyites" to claim that in order to "properly understand" the dogma one needs to be able to regurgitate five pages of distinctions and qualifications is absolutely repugnant to me, especially when the distinctions involve turning EENS into the OPPOSITE OF EENS, and they accuse US of "heresy" for not understanding that the Church meant to define the exact opposite of what it said. So if you believe that Muslims, Jєωs, pagans, heretics, and schismatics CANNOT be saved, then they consider you a "heretic", despite the fact that one of the dogmatic definitions SAID EXACTLY THAT. So when Traditional Bishops (Lefebvre and Fellay) talk about how Jєωs and Muslims CAN be saved, how is that not a SCANDAL against the faith and a source of confusion to Catholics? Archbishop Lefebvre made his comments in a book "Letter to Confused Catholics". So it doesn't confuse Catholics when the Church dogma reads "Jєωs/Muslims CANNOT be saved" to teach that Jєωs/Muslims CAN be saved? This confusion is completely diabolical. Our speech here needs to be "Yes, yes." and "No, no." When asked whether anyone other than a Catholic can be saved, the answer must be a simple, direct, unwavering, unqualified "NO"; not, "well, what this really means is, yes and no, and actually in the end yes." Holy Office under St. Pius X affirmed that when asked Catholics MUST respond that infidels cannot be saved. How many Traditional Catholics today obey this directive?
Yes, if you happen to believe something even slightly different than what the Council of Florence infallibly taught: that "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life…." then, you don't have leg to stand on rejecting any of the new Ecclesiology or Vatican II. Most trads are only preoccupied with the Liturgy, the bells and veils, while holding the same exact liberal Modernist errors. What the real problem cringes in is the dogma, not the liturgy.
-
I've followed your other thread on Vatican II, there we will discuss whether a Protestant or Orthodox can be a "material heretic or schismatic". The question is what is the minimum necessary for justification, and so to enter, or remain in the Church, if baptized.
Where is this?
-
I've followed your other thread on Vatican II, there we will discuss whether a Protestant or Orthodox can be a "material heretic or schismatic". The question is what is the minimum necessary for justification, and so to enter, or remain in the Church, if baptized.
Where is this?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Vatican-II-Errors
-
Glad that one of your professors upheld it. As for short-hand, Ladislaus, we can call it Thomism. Both proponents and detractors typically style it such, even though it is nothing other than the consecrated Tradition of the Fathers that St. Thomas merely collected and reaffirmed. It is also upheld in various Creeds taken by the Popes, that without the Catholic Faith no one is saved, and the Catholic Faith includes explicit faith at least in Jesus and His divinity.
“Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved."
That Pope St. Pius X was a Thomist should in my opinion be sufficient for all informed traditional Catholics to be one. It is also taught by some manuals, as mentioned above. You criticize traditional priests for not teaching it today, but I think you forget this doctrine has fallen into confusion over the course of the last century, one reason for which is that many people think Suprema Haec favored the minority opinion, and others, such as Fenton, who gave it up not after Suprema Haec but after Vatican II. Today, there are only few priests, like your professor, who still read and learn entirely from the old manuals, and adhere strictly to Thomism. Some recent manuals also expressly favored the minority opinion, especially after Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.
But I've never known anyone who favors the minority opinion answer the proofs offered by St. Alphonsus, Fenton and Mueller, including the passages we've seen from Tradition, Pope Benedict XIV and Pope St. Pius X. They are a sufficient proof of Thomism, it is Tradition, it is tried and tested, and has good fruits.
we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused ... St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor, God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
There are many known examples where God has done extraordinary things to bring infidels to Christ, that have always surprised Christian missionaries.
Claude-Charles Dallet wrote of Caius of Korea in A history of the church in Korea, "His history proves, in a dazzling way, that God would rather make a miracle than abandon an infidel who follows the lights of his conscience, and seeks the truth with an upright and docile heart.
In The Victories of the Martyrs by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, it is said that "One day during sleep it seemed to him that the house was on fire: a little while afterwards a young child of ravishing beauty appeared to him, and announced to him that he would soon meet what he desired; at the same time he felt himself quite well, though he had been sick. Despairing of seeing among the bonzes the light for which he was longing, he resolved to leave them." ...
While he was instructed, one of the priests showed him a tableau representing Jesus Christ, at which Caius is said to have exclaimed,
"Oh! Voila! Here is who appeared to me in my cave, and who foretold all that happened to me."
As far as the possibility of material heresy in one who believes in Christ is concerned, almost all authorities admit it. Fr. Mueller writes, “Unquestionably, authorities in any number may be cited to prove – what nobody disputes – that pertinacity in rejecting the authority of the Church is essential to formal or culpable heresy" citing among others, St. Augustine who writes, "But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you."
So, the case of a person who believes in Jesus (Trinity and Incarnation) and does not yet cling to any heresy is slightly different. He can for a short time be in a heresy that is purely material, which is not heresy properly so called, but only error. However, there is a great danger of him clinging obstinately to some heresy shortly after adulthood, or of otherwise falling into mortal sin and being unable to recover grace after that. Most theologians taught that a child coming to the age of reason in a non-Catholic sect can only remain for a short time within the Church. After that, he will likely formally become a heretic.
See also Fr. Arnold Damen, a friend of Fr. Mueller, who personally received some 13,000 Protestant converts into the Church, say something similar below.
http://www.olrl.org/apologetics/one_church.shtml
-
As far as the possibility of material heresy in one who believes in Christ is concerned, almost all authorities admit it. Fr. Mueller writes, “Unquestionably, authorities in any number may be cited to prove – what nobody disputes – that pertinacity in rejecting the authority of the Church is essential to formal or culpable heresy" citing among others, St. Augustine who writes, "But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you."
Indeed there is such a thing as material heresy. Undoubtedly there are material heretics on this board. Material heretics are simply Catholics who are mistaken about WHAT the Church teaches. Protestants cannot be material heretics since they do not believe what they believe with the infallible certainty of faith, based upon the infallible rule of faith, the Church's Magisterium, but rather based on their private judgment. Neither the Orthodox nor Protestants are in the state described by St. Augustine, as being prepared to be set right based upon the authority of the Church, for they REJECT the authority of the Church in principle and cannot have the formal motive of faith. Neither sincerity of belief, nor lack of culpability in terms of committing an actual sin against faith supplies for the need to have the formal motive of faith; the formal motive of faith can be lacking also by mere absence, such as for those growing up in heretical sects. Protestants and Orthodox both "pertinaciously reject the authority of the Church" ... just as Father Mueller describes.
-
bump due to relevance
-
It was the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH FATHERS that faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation. Consequently, this was clearly part of the Deposit of Revelation and a DOGMA. To say otherwise is HERESY. Anyone who says that Muslims, Jєωs, pagans, or any manner of infidel can be saved DENY CATHOLIC DOGMA. Tragically, most "Traditional Catholics" believe this today.
Apparently I know the only Trads whom you've never met. The idea that idolizing substitutes for Christ or eliminating Him from belief is harmonious with salvation is not something I have run across in trad circles, so I don't know what you mean by "most." Do you mean most you have personally encountered?
-
Traditional Catholics have had their minds and their faith poisoned by the very Pelagian subjectivism which led to most of the problems with Vatican II. Yet the reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II. But these "errors and heresies" are NONE OTHER than the same ones that they themselves hold.
Just my opinion...
I think that most "traditional" Catholics are only concerned with the Mass.
Again, I don't know that I agree about "most." But I do think that too many trads do not understand how integral the Mass is to everything else, including dogma and spirituality, and that artificial (or ignorant) separation makes it appear that they are "only concerned with the Mass."
-
It was the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH FATHERS that faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation. Consequently, this was clearly part of the Deposit of Revelation and a DOGMA. To say otherwise is HERESY. Anyone who says that Muslims, Jєωs, pagans, or any manner of infidel can be saved DENY CATHOLIC DOGMA. Tragically, most "Traditional Catholics" believe this today.
Apparently I know the only Trads whom you've never met. The idea that idolizing substitutes for Christ or eliminating Him from belief is harmonious with salvation is not something I have run across in trad circles, so I don't know what you mean by "most." Do you mean most you have personally encountered?
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
P.S.- This belief/response takes a long time to get them to admit, therefore, you will only get to it on a forum debate and over a long time. The reason being that they are averse to revealing it.
-
It was the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH FATHERS that faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation. Consequently, this was clearly part of the Deposit of Revelation and a DOGMA. To say otherwise is HERESY. Anyone who says that Muslims, Jєωs, pagans, or any manner of infidel can be saved DENY CATHOLIC DOGMA. Tragically, most "Traditional Catholics" believe this today.
Apparently I know the only Trads whom you've never met. The idea that idolizing substitutes for Christ or eliminating Him from belief is harmonious with salvation is not something I have run across in trad circles, so I don't know what you mean by "most." Do you mean most you have personally encountered?
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
P.S.- This belief/response takes a long time to get them to admit, therefore, you will only get to it on a forum debate and over a long time. The reason being that they are averse to revealing it.
I don't know where you get your idea from, since all my life including today in CMRI, the way it is explained to me, is someone professing a man-made religion can only be saved if they convert to the True religion, meaning only God can judge the soul because of this. To say otherwise about MOST is an outright lie, unless of course, you count the Modernist who believes ALL are saved. The difference is the way it is interpreted, the Feeneyites mind-set is; they want to judge the soul and if they do not see with their own eyes this conversion, it pleases them to send the person to Hell, by their noise they seem to glory in this thinking. In so doing they forget they will be judged more harshly themselves, I fear, without mercy.
You might want to read the book of Romans, concerning the Jєωs and how God will graft them back. On second thought you better not it will anger the Feeneyite if you consider yourself one.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
I have not heard that from sede circles, nor from my own trad priest (strict EENS), who is not SSPX.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
I have not heard that from sede circles, nor from my own trad priest (strict EENS), who is not SSPX.
Because it isn't true! :cheers:
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
I have not heard that from sede circles, nor from my own trad priest (strict EENS), who is not SSPX.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, Bishop Pirvarunas, Bishop McKenna -- these have ALL made public statements saying exactly what Tradhican mentioned.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
I have not heard that from sede circles, nor from my own trad priest (strict EENS), who is not SSPX.
Because it isn't true! :cheers:
Really? That's why CMRI has twice published an article entitled "The Salvation of those Outside the Church" ... denying EENS word for word in the title and throughout the article. You're in ignorance and/or denial.
On another note, NO Feeneyite has ever "judged" souls. We are discussing the objective criteria for salvation and not whether any particular soul met those criteria. Only God knows the latter obviously. But you keep hurling this malicious slur at us.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route. Like the poster said before, this subject is too deep for most trads. However, for those that label the believers of a strict EENS, as Feeneyites, it is a different story. If you press them, you will find that they all believe that Buddhists, Muslim, Jєωs can be saved without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
I have not heard that from sede circles, nor from my own trad priest (strict EENS), who is not SSPX.
Because it isn't true! :cheers:
Really? That's why CMRI has twice published an article entitled "The Salvation of those Outside the Church" ... denying EENS word for word in the title and throughout the article. You're in ignorance and/or denial.
On another note, NO Feeneyite has ever "judged" souls. We are discussing the objective criteria for salvation and not whether any particular soul met those criteria. Only God knows the latter obviously. But you keep hurling this malicious slur at us.
Lad maybe you should read the article instead of just the title of the article. I placed the article in the Library HERE ON THIS FORUM, it explains how some convert to the True Faith, through the mercy of God, not ALL, but SOME, we do not know the number. Which is what the Church has always taught. You yourself at one time in your life depended on the Mercy of God, so why deny it to others.
I also was led outside the Church into the novus ordo but through the Mercy of God and His grace was brought back. If I died during that time, I would have lost my soul. We all have received His Mercy, the Bible explains how God will favor those who He wants.
If the Feeneyite is not judging, then what would you call it. The Feeneyite glory in seeing who they decide is not Catholic AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH. They too will be judged accordingly.
You would be much better off if you just stick to the teaching, NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and pray for those OUTSIDE THE CHURCH to convert before they die an enemy of God. Instead of judging who YOU DECIDE IN NOT IN THE STATE OF GRACE AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH.
-
If the Feeneyite is not judging, then what would you call it. The Feeneyite glory in seeing who they decide is not Catholic AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH. They too will be judged accordingly.
I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. None of the Feeneyites I am aware of judges the state of any soul at the moment of death (maybe except for the Dimonds, but they do not represent a classic Feeneyite position). The argument is about objective requirements for salvation, not the eternal fate of any specific individual.
-
If the Feeneyite is not judging, then what would you call it. The Feeneyite glory in seeing who they decide is not Catholic AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH. They too will be judged accordingly.
I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. None of the Feeneyites I am aware of judges the state of any soul at the moment of death (maybe except for the Dimonds, but they do not represent a classic Feeneyite position). The argument is about objective requirements for salvation, not the eternal fate of any specific individual.
I sincerely hope you are correct, for I would not want to be responsible for posting an exaggeration as they do about those who do not profess the Feeneyite position when they insist those outside their Feeneyite ilk do not believe in EENS.
Stranger too is how so many of them turn a blind eye to the man they call their Pope that does exactly and makes no excuses for his words when he says ALL ARE SAVED. Yet he is THEIR MAN, their pope.
-
I sincerely hope you are correct, for I would not want to be responsible for posting an exaggeration as they do about those who do not profess the Feeneyite position when they insist those outside their Feeneyite ilk do not believe in EENS.
Unfortunately, the sad truth is that most non-Feeneyites don't actually believe in EENS.
-
I sincerely hope you are correct, for I would not want to be responsible for posting an exaggeration as they do about those who do not profess the Feeneyite position when they insist those outside their Feeneyite ilk do not believe in EENS.
Unfortunately, the sad truth is that most non-Feeneyites don't actually believe in EENS.
Blame that on the novus ordo and the mind set of the world; I wouldn't be surprised if they don't actually believe in Jesus is God nor the Trinity.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route.
...I believe you are mistaken
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)]
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route.
...I believe you are mistaken
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)]
http://www.fatherfeeney.org/other/masonry.html
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route.
...I believe you are mistaken
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)]
You have one quote that is sort of in favor of invincible ignorance (and then he contradicts himself), while there are literally hundreds or thousands against it....maybe think about this topic more clearly, your mind is slanted and constrained.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route.
...I believe you are mistaken
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)]
He is not mistaken. The SSPX's position is FAR, far away from the original thoughts of Pope IX. These are the words of the SSPX founder: (The CMRI is even more militant when it comes to the rejection of the Catholic Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma)
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
-
The SSPX and sede groups ALL teach/defend in their seminaries and articles that non-Catholics can be saved via this Rewarder God route.
...I believe you are mistaken
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)]
He is not mistaken. The SSPX's position is FAR, far away from the original thoughts of Pope IX. These are the words of the SSPX founder: (The CMRI is even more militant when it comes to the rejection of the Catholic Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma)
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
Someday SOON, you will find out how wrong and hypocritical your thinking is.
-
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X, in 1907, 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”.
-
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X, in 1907, 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”.
Yes, I believe that! My point is we who are merely humans, Gods creation are not allowed to say exactly who died as an infidel FOR CERTAIN. See my point is, it is up to God to say who is an infidel at that last moment of their death, after death your will is fixed forever.
I prefer to say, May God have mercy on their soul. Leave it at that!
-
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.
-
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X, in 1907, 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”.
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...
Read again what the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X said. It could not be any clearer.
When asked if a Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Moslem, Mohammed himself was saved, "must answer that those who die as infidels are damned".
-
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X, in 1907, 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”.
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...
Read again what the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X said. It could not be any clearer.
When asked if a Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Moslem, Mohammed himself was saved, "must answer that those who die as infidels are damned".
You miss the point of Pope St. Pius X ... those who die as infidels ... no one knows except God, it is also wrong to affirm that infidels are saved.
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).
Amakusa said it perfectly above, in other words LEAVE IT UP TO GOD.
You will be much better off yourself when you face God.
-
'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 (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html). The correct verse is actually Matthew 18:17. Douay Rheims link (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=18&l=17#x)
'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.)
The same above link of the encyclical omitted essential words. The actual correct (complete) verse is: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. Douay Rheims link (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=16&l=16#x)
This verse, and the correct interpretation by the Church, tells us that both baptism (with water) and belief in Christ are necessary for salvation; while being baptized yet later apostatizing from the Faith will lead a man to be condemned, along with never having been baptized and never having the Faith in the first place.
I didn't bother to check the other mentioned verses.
[...] non-Feeneyites [...]
I just call them BODB Heads. If they want to call Catholics "Feeneyites" for merely adhering to Catholic teaching, they should have a label of their own for being ignorant of it.
-
Yes, I believe that! My point is we who are merely humans, Gods creation are not allowed to say exactly who died as an infidel FOR CERTAIN. See my point is, it is up to God to say who is an infidel at that last moment of their death, after death your will is fixed forever.
I prefer to say, May God have mercy on their soul. Leave it at that!
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.
Myrna and Amakusa, you are both missing the point. The object of the debate is not eternal fate of any specific individual. You are right, we can't know the state of any soul at the moment of death and we can judge no one. The only strict EENS-ers that I am aware of who judge individual souls to be damned are the Dimonds.
The object of the debate are objective requirements for salvation. You say we can't know who died as infidel - you are correct, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. 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.
-
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".
-
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!
-
'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 (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html). The correct verse is actually Matthew 18:17. Douay Rheims link (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=18&l=17#x)
'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.)
The encyclical references MK. 16:16:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Which is the very reason why CMRI does not want anything to do with the novus ordo. Just yesterday I listened to a sermon from our priest who plainly explains the fact that Francis and his ilk continue to break the First Commandment.
By accepting them as Catholics in my mind, is like taking the Mark of the Beast voluntarily.
This is why I say it is hypocritical to in one way, accept their authority which comes from the devil, call them Popes, when it is clear they do not believe in EENS the very doctrine that the Feeneyist try to accuse many Traditionalists of denying.
The fact that one is a Traditionalist proves they believe in EENS otherwise, why not just remain in the belief that all are saved.
I think I am becoming a Dogmatic Traditionalist.
-
I think I am becoming a Dogmatic Traditionalist.
Sounds good to me! :cheers:
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
So, let me ask you again, LoT, is it possible that Confucius could have been saved?
-
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.
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.
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.
Your problem Lad is you want to be the Pilot, but God is the Pilot. You better switch seats with Him and be satisfied you are nothing but at best the co-pilot.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Arvinger
I read your note and took it seriously, have you noticed I have not used the word "judgement" since.
Thank you for reminding me not to make the same mistake some Feenynites make and that is to insist on claiming what is not know to them and only to God. In this case you are right I have no idea if anyone is actually judging a soul.
-
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.
-
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.
So Cantarella are you making a judgement? Just curious!
-
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.
-
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.
So Cantarella are you making a judgement? Just curious!
Is Holy Mother Church making a judgement here?
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St Pius X, in 1907, 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”.
-
'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 (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html). The correct verse is actually Matthew 18:17. Douay Rheims link (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=18&l=17#x)
'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.
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.
-
Myrna and Amakusa, you are both missing the point. The object of the debate is not eternal fate of any specific individual. You are right, we can't know the state of any soul at the moment of death and we can judge no one. The only strict EENS-ers that I am aware of who judge individual souls to be damned are the Dimonds.
The object of the debate are objective requirements for salvation. You say we can't know who died as infidel - you are correct, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. 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.
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...
This debate about baptism of desire is pointless.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 see that the Holy Office is causing consternation among the rabid EENS-haters.
They claim that they disagree with ME when their disagreement is with the Holy Office.
At least be honest and stop claiming that your disagreement is with me. Admit that you disagree with the Holy Office under St. Pius X.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
" 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".
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
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: