Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella

Ah ha!. It is not easy, but it IS possible according to Myrna.

However Our Lord said:


"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Ah ha! to you!  Sounds like you deny or haven't thought it out, that everyone in Sanctifying grace, and I mean everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ, through the precious BLOOD that God the Father WILLED TO BE APPEASED BY.

<<<And the Catholic Church declared infallibly:>>>>  NOT TO JUDGE THE SOUL OF OTHERS

In his Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII declared to the Universal Church that "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."

So contrary to the above de fide decree, you appear to believe like the protestants that "everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ" when it is de fide that outside the Church there is no forgiveness of sins.

Please explain how anyone outside the Church can possibly be in the state of sanctifying grace without the forgiveness of sins?

It is not us who judge the souls of others by adhering to the de fide teaching, rather those who claim sanctifying grace can be had outside the Church so that those who die outside the Church go to heaven are guilty of judging that non-Catholics go, or have a chance of going to heaven.

The futility is on your end. I asked perfectly good questions and, you keep evading directly answering them. You are trying to pass off a quantity of words hoping the readers won't notice that you didn't actually answer the questions.

You are showing that you yourself don't even know what the term "schismatic" means. For instance, if one obtained ordination from a non-Catholic (outside of an emergency) it would not be schism, it would be another sin, but the sin doesn't cut one off from the Church.

From the article:

Quote from: CMRI

Necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for non-Catholics to be part of the Soul of the Church:...Invincible Ignorance...

The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, but the Church has a visible body. The Soul of the Church is not composed of non-Catholics!

The emerging conclusion from this is that affiliation with the Church can be in desire and invisible, or why not?... even unconscious!. Therefore, the good willed Hindu can actually be a member of the Church without knowing it! Liberalism and false "traditionalism" in the personification of the CMRI are both faces of the same liberal progressive mask. Rahner would be very proud.

Invisible Church Theory Condemned

Quote from: Pius XII

The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Church in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How grievously are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!

Quote from: Leo XIII

Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

 A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

 1. Has been validly baptized;
 2. Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
 3. Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

The Liberal Catholics are not true Catholics and through their influence we have received cate­chisms that are less than, and inferior to, the CATECHISM OF TRENT. The so-called BALTI­MORE CATECHISM is one ex­ample of how subtle this liber­alism can be. Following we have a comparison of THE TRENT CATECHISM with the BALTI­MORE CATECHISM on two dogmatic points. THE BALTI­MORE CATECHISM: “No one can be saved except by being united to the Catholic Church. It is like Noah’s Ark, which saved men from the flood. Only through Christ and his Mystical Body can men be saved. They must be either in the ark of the church or at least hanging onto the ropes which trail from its sides.” Also in this Catechism: “But he who finds himself outside the Church without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church…” THE TRENT CATECHISM: “Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, or never knew the Church and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments.” “She (the church) is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood.” “… the ark of Noah … was a sym­bol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter herein through Baptism may be safe from danger or eternal death, while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the ark are overwhelmed by their own crimes.”

In other words, according to TRENT, one must have ENTERED the Ark, not hang onto the ropes on the outside as THE BALTIMORE CATE­CHISM presumes, because once this assumption is made, it opens doors that might allow anyone to be a part of the Church when in fact he is not. Also, can ignorance be an excuse, as is claimed in THE BALTIMORE CATE­CHISM? THE TRENT CATE­CHISM quotes from Optatus of Mileve: “You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, know­ing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, …” Also, Pope Saint Pius X quotes from his predecessor, Benedict XIV, the following: “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.”. It is easily seen from this, that there would be no need for the Church and all its missionary work if ignorance can get you into Heaven . It has been said that if ignorance of civil tax law doesn’t excuse you from paying those taxes, then ignorance of God’s Law, which is the highest authori­ty, doesn’t excuse you from know­ing and obeying His Law to reach salvation.

 Catholicism.org

Who should I believe about the "soul of the Church"?  Should I believe Cantarella and her Feeneyite doctrine?  Or should I trust Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII, none of whom ever condemned the Baltimore Catechism?  Pope Leo condemned Americanism but he didn't condemn the Baltimore Catechism.  Silence implies consent.  So I will put my trust in all these popes rather than put my trust in those who advocate for the condemned heresy of Fr. Feeney.

The Baltimore Catechism was one of the first to phrase the question about Baptism in such a way that children were required to answer that “there are three kinds of baptism.” As you yourself admit, Saint Thomas did not call baptism in desire or blood ”baptisms” except “analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of the sacrament of Baptism, namely the grace that remits sins.” (Verbum quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia) Furthermore, the Council of Trent issued its own Catechism, under orders of Pope Saint Pius V, without including Saint Thomas’ phraseology about baptism in desire or blood. In conformity with Trent, both Saints Robert Bellarmine and Peter Canisius refrained from including the same in their proper catechisms. Subsequent catechisms which did speak about desire and martyrdom taking the place of the water did not phrase the question as carelessly as the Baltimore. And in so doing, the Baltimore Catechism (and Cardinal Gibbons) swerved from the more exact terminology of Saint John Neumann’s work, on which it was supposed to be based.

Who should I believe about the "soul of the Church"?  Should I believe Cantarella and her Feeneyite doctrine?  Or should I trust Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII, none of whom ever condemned the Baltimore Catechism?  Pope Leo condemned Americanism but he didn't condemn the Baltimore Catechism.  Silence implies consent.  So I will put my trust in all these popes rather than put my trust in those who advocate for the condemned heresy of Fr. Feeney.

Clemens Maria, who adheres so fervently to st. Bellarmine's famous teaching on the "Manifest Heretic Pope who loses his pontificate immediately" dares to disagree with Bellarmine himself on this one, though. How ironic!

Quote from: st. Bellarmine

The Church is a society, not of Angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine, in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter 11, says: “Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.” 32

The novel doctrine of "soul of the Church" composed of non Catholics simply destroys central doctrines of the Church, for the Church has always taught that she is a visible society and the only kind of membership in her must necessarily be a visible and external one as St. Robert Bellarmine here teaches: that no one can be a member of the Church who is not visibly affiliated with the one visible society founded by Christ, subject to the authority of His vicar, the Roman Pontiff.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing.

Uhm, no, they haven't "ALWAYS" made this distinction.  In fact it was entirely uneard-of until well after the 13th century or so.  And even the ones who did were not promoting Pelagianism like the vast majority of you are.