So, if my conscience is not violated by killing babies, then carry on?

At this rate, Francis is going to make Paul VI and JPII look like champions of orthodoxy in no time at all.

Unfortunately, outside of a few trad Catholic friends and here at CI, most nominal Catholics do believe[/I] that JPII was some sort of champion of Catholic orthodoxy. I recently got slammed in conversation with some Catholic acquaintances  when I politely suggested that Card Dolan was scandalous for freely giving Communion to people such as Christine Quinn (openly ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, pro-abort NYC politician) and VP Joe Biden, then later I politely expressed disapproval of JPII's Assisi conferences with heretics & Koran kissing. It became clear that they believed in universal salvation, wether they were willing to admit it or not. The Modernists have done a good job of spreading their heresy over the past 50+ years.

I see we've got two threads going.  I'll say what I said in the other one.  Wife made an interesting point when I told her about this, said according to this logic, an atheist sins if he begins to believe in God.

My own comment: this man is a pile of relativistic slime.  As Bishop Williamson said when he was here, "there's almost nothing Catholic about him at all."  

Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?

Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?

That is a movie?   :surprised:

I thought it was real life.

I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)

This is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:

The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.

I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.

Well, here you have Pope Francis teaching it, where are all of those people who down thumbs me at every turn every time I bring up this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents? Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from him or teach the same as him (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?

From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr!

This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.

Quote

I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)

This is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:

The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.

I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.

Well, here you have Pope Francis teaching it, where are all of those people who down thumbs me at every turn every time I bring up this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents? Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from him or teach the same as him (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?

Quote

From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr!

This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.

What about the people who live under the veil of invincible ignorance? How much of that invincible ignorance is caused by our lack of charity and sinfulness?