Quote from: Cantarella

However, Vatican II Ad Gentes 7 actually states that ALL need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This is true for the evangelical, as well as the Jew.

Quote

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes

In this passage above Vatican II is saying all need to enter the Church for salvation. No exceptions.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You know better than this, Cantarella.  How many theological manuals and how many posters here on CI will affirm the language of EENS but then deny it by redefining everything?  They affirm the language (because they have to), but then they redefine all the terms.  Lumen Gentium absolutely rejects EENS.  But, again, there's nothing in Lumen Gentium which does not simply apply the same principles as Suprema Haec ... which most SVs accept as if it were a dogmatic papal bull.

That is the whole point. This people have no idea what they are really fighting against.

ALL the problematic doctrine of Vatican II reduces ultimately to the erosion of a single dogma, that of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS). Ratzinger himself pointed this out as well. If you have a loose interpretation of EENS, then the theology of Vatican II flows logically from it. If I accepted that loose interpretation of EENS and the Holy Letter of 1949, I would HAVE to accept all of Vatican II in principle and everything that comes with it.

ALB himself famously stated that people can be saved IN their false religions but not BY them. But according to the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church, all souls must be explicitly converted to Catholicism via water baptism. The modernist interpretation on EENS is what sets up the entire new Vatican II "Anonymous Christian" ecclesiology.

If the criteria for salvation is now subjective, then people unquestionably have a God-given right to follow their consciences and save their souls, which is the foundation for Religious Liberty. Ironically, the SSPX accepts this loose definition of EENS and Sedevacantist are even more rigorous on this issue! as to even refuse communion to the "feeneyites" and display a clear obsession against those that claim that BOD/BOB are not de fide. As a result, the issues with Vatican II become merely liturgical, instead of dogmatic.

Quote from: obertray imondday

Your intellectual pride is clearly on display. It has been pointed out numerous times why this bergolglio is an antichrist. He denies the one true God, " I don't believe in the Catholic God", what else does he need to belch out of his filthy mouth.

So which of the Dimond brothers are you?  Rhetoric such as "belch out of his filthy mouth" clearly displays a dark bitter zeal in your soul.

I actually do think that he's a heretic ... for denying EENS.  But my problem is with the SVs who just shoot from the hip with charges of heresy left and right when they clearly don't know what they're not talking about.  Yet, ironically, most of these same SVs essentially believe the SAME THING as Bergoglio when it comes to EENS.  That's what I'm trying to expose here.

Catholic theologians / philosophers will tell you that God IS WHO IS, God is Being Himself and is not limited by any attributes, including the term "Catholic".  Now, that's probably not what he meant here, but the point is that in normal times he would have to be interrogated about his meaning and ask to retract it if indeed the meaning was heretical.

You are beyond lost which is a pity and it does not give me pleasure to say it. His statement is a 100% denial of the faith. Everyone one of the faithful know that HE WHO IS, is the One True God, the Blessed Trinity of the universal Church, a.k.a. the Catholic Church, so all he is saying is he denies the Catholic Church which is apostasy. I have said it all along Bergoglio is the biggest sedevacantist of them all, but for the wrong reasons.

Aren't you the guy that condemned the belief that faith in a rewarder/punisher God alone equals supernatural faith? Why are you defending it now?

Quote from: obertray imondday

You are beyond lost which is a pity and it does not give me pleasure to say it. His statement is a 100% denial of the faith. Everyone one of the faithful know that HE WHO IS, is the One True God, the Blessed Trinity of the universal Church, a.k.a. the Catholic Church, so all he is saying is he denies the Catholic Church which is apostasy. I have said it all along Bergoglio is the biggest sedevacantist of them all, but for the wrong reasons.

Aren't you the guy that condemned the belief that faith in a rewarder/punisher God alone equals supernatural faith? Why are you defending it now?

There are two ways to understand the term "Catholic God", 1) that God Himself is Catholic or 2) the Catholic doctrine about God.  God is, obviously not "Catholic"; He is beyond Catholicism.  I'm guessing that, as per usual, Bergoglio was deliberately ambiguous between #1 and #2 above.  My point is that the statement is not inherently / objectively heretical ... if he means #1.  My point is that someone would have to interrogate him further regarding what he meant by that.

Correct.  I do not believe in the "Rewarder God" theory of salvation.  You seem to be missing what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the ONLY heresy one might actually pin on Bergoglio so that it would stick would be EENS denial, and yet 99% of all Sedevacantists think the same thing.  I think that he most likely doesn't believe in EENS.

Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

HERESY is a word to be treated very carefully.

Heresy is the obstinate denial of some Catholic dogma which must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith.

From all of these isolated statements which are taken out of context, the only dogma that can be said to be obstinately denied is EENS.

No, not just "only" explicitly defined dogmas qualify for heresy, as the "expert" armchair theologians like yourself would have us believe.

“The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful.” Michel, DTC 6:2215.

The heretic may deny the doctrine “in explicit or equivalent terms,”[R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638. “verbis explicitis vel aequivalentibus.”], through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition.[Michel, DTC 6:2213. Example: Christ is God-Man = de fide. Christ is not God-Man = contradictory proposition. Christ is pure man, Christ is an angel = contrary propositions.]

“Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence,” says Michel, “to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church’s magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.

“This willed opposition to the Church’s magisterium constitutes the pertinacity authors require for the sin of heresy. With Cajetan we must observe that pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another.” Michel, DTC 6:2222.


SO, you yourself qualify for heresy Cantarella, and Ladislaus as well, and anyone else who questions bod/bob.

Ladislaus,

Please read this post.  It's important.  I'll be as brief as possible.

Francis' saying "there is no Catholic God" is not as ambiguous as you think it is.  If you take it alone, without any context, there is a certain level of ambiguity-- I don't think there's as much as you think there is (taken alone) but I'll admit to a certain amount of wiggle room.

But he didn't say it alone.  He said it in the course of an interview, and he extrapolated on the comment.  He said:

"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?"

Setting aside the quasi-Arian distinction he makes between God the Father and God the Son, he is describing "the god" that he believes in.  He calls it his "Being."  He then asks the interviewer if he (the interviewer) thinks that his (Francis') "god" is much different than the interviewer's god.  The interviewer is an atheist.

Then the next question:

Interviewer: We are distant in our thinking, but similar as human beings, unconsciously animated by our instincts that turn into impulses, feelings and will, thought and reason. In this we are alike.

Francis: "But can you define what you call Being?"

And the next question, which provides most of the context for what "god" Francis believes in:

Interviewer: Being is a fabric of energy. Chaotic but indestructible energy and eternal chaos. Forms emerge from that energy when it reaches the point of exploding. The forms have their own laws, their magnetic fields, their chemical elements, which combine randomly, evolve, and are eventually extinguished but their energy is not destroyed. Man is probably the only animal endowed with thought, at least in our planet and solar system. I said that he is driven by instincts and desires but I would add that he also contains within himself a resonance, an echo, a vocation of chaos.

Francis: "All right. I did not want you to give me a summary of your philosophy and what you have told me is enough for me. From my point of view, God is the light that illuminates the darkness, even if it does not dissolve it, and a spark of divine light is within each of us. In the letter I wrote to you, you will remember I said that our species will end but the light of God will not end and at that point it will invade all souls and it will all be in everyone."

Do you still think it's ambiguous?  Francis says he doesn't believe in a Catholic God, that a Catholic God doesn't exist, then goes on to describe what "god" does exist, and that "god" is a "spark of divine light" existing in each of us, and that at the end of the world, this spark will invade all hearts.  It's a pantheistic, modernist smorgasbord.  He has not left whether or not he is a heretic to the imagination, he has pronounced it loudly and proudly.  He doesn't believe in a Catholic God, that God doesn't exist, he believes in a divine spark that resides in each of us and that will, at the end of time, reside in all of us.

He very clearly did NOT mean that God doesn't observe Catholic devotions or that God doesn't go to mass or that God isn't the creator of all things.  He means very specifically to say that the Catholic God, that is, the God worshipped in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the God of Tradition and Scripture does not exist.

Here is the interview: http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/?ref=HREA-1

Quote from: Bergoglio

"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?"

In context, it even sounds more like my interpretation #1.

Setting aside the quasi-Arian distinction he makes between God the Father and God the Son, he is describing "the god" that he believes in.  He calls it his "Being."  He then asks the interviewer if he (the interviewer) thinks that his (Francis') "god" is much different than the interviewer's god.  The interviewer is an atheist.

Again, the term "Being" makes it sound more like my interpretation #1, which isn't heretical.

Do you still think it's ambiguous?  Francis says he doesn't believe in a Catholic God, that a Catholic God doesn't exist, then goes on to describe what "god" does exist, and that "god" is a "spark of divine light" existing in each of us

That's just mindless babble, but I don't see it as being heretical on the surface.  Again, whatever he's saying, even IF it were determined to be heretical (let's say he's corrected by someone at the Vatican), then if he retracted it upon being admonished, then he wouldn't even be pertinacious in his bad formulation.

God is the God of all.  God exists in everything that it exists, for nothing exists except that it exists in God and God in it.  That's just Catholic philosophy going back to St. Augustine; it's not necessarily pantheism.

He very clearly did NOT mean that God doesn't observe Catholic devotions or that God doesn't go to mass or that God isn't the creator of all things.  He means very specifically to say that the Catholic God, that is, the God worshipped in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the God of Tradition and Scripture does not exist.

He clearly does NOT mean that this God does not exist.  He speaks and acts as if He believes in precisely that God.

Ladislaus is only doing the work of the Devil defending antichrists like Synagoglio.

No, I'm just trying to keep you honest.  I told you that I believe that he most likely IS a heretic, in his denial of EENS.  But YOU ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RUN AROUND FLINGING ACCUSATIONS OF HERESY WITHOUT CONCRETE SOLID PROOF.  You just run your mouth.  Jorge Bergoglio can't so much as break wind without you immediately accusing him of heresy for doing so.  Because you despise the man.