Author Topic: SSPX Teaches Salvation of Non-Catholics (Read 981 times)

bowler · « **on:** September 16, 2013, 09:13:08 AM »

From another thread.

Quote

To Lover of Truth

The problem I see with your sources, the SSPX taught priests and bishops, some of which split away and became sedevcantes, is that they strain a gnat and swallow a camel. They do that by attacking Dimond's and Fr. Feeney (as if they were the only people in history who believed in John 3:5 as it is written.) for believing in John 3:5 as it is written, when your sources all believe in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, which has NOTHING to do with the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed. Your sources are people who live in glass houses that throw stones.

It is interesting how your sedevacantes sources mention the 1949 letter and how "it was approved by Pius XII", and yet they reject the Holy Week changes which really were approved by Pius XII. They have no common sense.

If someone with common sense were ever to write against those that understand John 3:5 as it is written, they could teach that a catechumen or someone like a catechumen, who has an explicit desire to be a Catholic or to be baptized , and believes in the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Trinity, may be saved if he is pre-justified by God but died before he could be baptized. They could show how St. Thomas and the other Thomists, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri, taught this. This would be a good argument.

The problem comes when they go from there and end up going all the way to salvation for those who are not a catechumen and are not someone like a catechumen, and do not have an explicit desire to be a Catholic or to be baptized , and do not believe in the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Trinity. That is where they separate themselves from the ONLY authority they have, St. Thomas and the Thomists. They loose all common sense from there and come up with all manner if inconsistencies.

Like the one I mentioned above:
"It is interesting how they mention the 1949 letter and how "it was approved by Pius XII", and yet they reject the Holy Week changes which really were approved by Pius XII".

There are many more, but they are as nothing compared to their actually ending up rejecting All the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed.

But, they don't see that. I think it is because they have been slow boiled.

bowler · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2013, 06:14:20 PM »

Outside of Nishant, I don't know of any CI believer in BOD that can discuss the subject when they are forced to focus on their belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, that is, their belief in salvation today for those persons who have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or be baptized, nor a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.

WANTED, EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT, INTELLIGENT BODers! (Feelings oriented and know nothings types need not apply)

Any SSPX priests, Fr. Laisney, Fr. Rulleau, SSPV priests, Fr. Cekada, CMRI priests ect, Where are you now? Where are your articles defending salvation by implicit faith? You call people Feeneyites and heretics for believing in John 3:5 as it is written, yet your belief in Implicit Faith goes against the Athanasian Creed, and was never taught by any Father of the Church, nor Doctor, nor Saint!

Our belief in John 3:5 as it is written was the unanimous opinion, akin to revelation, of the Fathers of the Church. Our belief agrees with the Athanasian Creed and all of the dogmatic decrees on baptism and EENS.
Yet your belief in implicit faith goes against all the Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, and all the dogmatic decrees on baptism and EENS.

Come out into the light and stop hiding behind baptism of desire of St. Thomas, which has NOTHING to do with your belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ which was never taught by St. Thomas or any Father of the Church, nor Doctor, nor Saint!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2013, 07:38:04 PM »

Honestly, both sides have tended to conflate the BoD of catechumens and the "broader" BoD. Ironically, most of those who would criticize "Feeneyites" for rejecting the opinion of a St. Alphonsus Liguori themselves reject the opinion of St. Alphonsus Liguori regarding the broader BoD.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2013, 07:39:52 PM »

While these followers of Archbishop Lefebvre reject Father Feeney's position on BoD for catechumens, they adhere to Archbishop Lefebvre's heretical statements that those outside the Church can be saved. Of course I'm certain that Archbishop Lefebvre's statements were only materially heretical. I'd like to know which is worse, to have a possibly rigorous mistaken opinion on a matter of speculative theology such as BoD or to explicitly reject the dogma EENS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2013, 07:42:50 PM »

And I for one am so sick of seeing the openly heretical formulation that there are "three baptisms" ... directly contradicting the Nicene Creed. Couldn't they AT LEAST say that these are three modes of receiving the ONE BAPTISM, for crying out loud?

And then there are those catechisms which ask, "Can those outside the Church be saved?" by answering "Those outside the Church through no fault of their own can be saved." That too is heretical and a direct word for word contradiction of defined dogma. Couldn't you AT LEAST state that these fringe cases involves these people somehow (e.g. in voto) being WITHIN the Church?

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** September 18, 2013, 12:48:49 PM »

Last Call, maybe Lover of Truth can get his teachers to come on here and defend their dark side of BOD belief:

Quote from: bowler

Outside of Nishant, I don't know of any CI believer in BOD that can discuss the subject when they are forced to focus on their belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, that is, their belief in salvation today for those persons who have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or be baptized, nor a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.

WANTED, EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT, INTELLIGENT BODers! (Feelings oriented and know nothings types need not apply)

Any SSPX priests, Fr. Laisney, Fr. Rulleau, SSPV priests, Fr. Cekada, CMRI priests ect, Where are you now? Where are your articles defending salvation by implicit faith? You call people Feeneyites and heretics for believing in John 3:5 as it is written, yet your belief in Implicit Faith goes against the Athanasian Creed, and was never taught by any Father of the Church, nor Doctor, nor Saint!

Our belief in John 3:5 as it is written was the unanimous opinion, akin to revelation, of the Fathers of the Church. Our belief agrees with the Athanasian Creed and all of the dogmatic decrees on baptism and EENS.
Yet your belief in implicit faith goes against all the Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, and all the dogmatic decrees on baptism and EENS.

Come out into the light and stop hiding behind baptism of desire of St. Thomas, which has NOTHING to do with your belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ which was never taught by St. Thomas or any Father of the Church, nor Doctor, nor Saint!