Author Topic: St. Vincent Ferrer (Read 2078 times)

DeMaistre · « **on:** June 21, 2009, 12:01:24 PM »

How was/is St. Vincent Ferrer saved as he followed an anti-pope?

Prodinoscopus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2009, 12:38:13 PM »

The sedes will tell you that the "anti-pope" that St. Vincent Ferrer followed was not a heretic or apostate.

The question that you should be asking is how will you be saved if death finds you in a state of manifest and pertinacious schism by willfully and formally separating yourself from the Vicar of Christ.

Do you want to stake your salvation on the "common sense" judgment of a self-appointed magisterium that consists of a bunch of armchair theologians who broadcast their opinions over the internet?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2009, 04:23:59 PM »

That would really depend on whether they are following the teachings of the Church. If you're following the teachings of the Church, then it doesn't matter if you're an "armchair theologian." Truth is truth.

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2009, 04:35:43 PM »

Prodinoscopus, you have been listening too much to your ravening wolves in the clothing of sheep. "Armchair theologians."

So does that mean that a person who learns chemistry on their own and not in a university is an armchair chemist? Or a person who learns fitness exercises on their own and not in a gym or from a personal trainer is an armchair fitness guy?

I am sure there are self taught chemists who are complete geniuses in their field and I personally know of a self taught fitness guy who can run circles around professional fitness trainers and outperform them in many feats of strength.

Come on man. You have gone from not condemning to condemning in a matter of less than a week. If you do not agree with someone's theology it is easy to call them an armchair theologian, rather than explain how their theology is false, if it is.

DeMaistre: St. Vincent Ferrer withdrew his support of the Avignon antipopes before he died. Furthermore, St. Vincent was a baptized Catholic who received the sacraments and believed all that the Church taught, and nobody had any way of knowing that Pedro De Luna was an antipope, since as Prodinoscopus mentioned, he was not heretical. Now you may ask, where is the excuse for this Saint that allows him to still attain salvation if he dies in this state?

Simple. Invincible ignorance. We know that invincible ignorance does not save a person who is outside of the Catholic Church, because they are still guilty of original sin, and they have no recourse to the forgiveness available to the children of God. But St. Vincent, as I have mentioned had already found the true faith, but knowingly following an antipope means that we are separated from the true faith, or even doing so unknowingly when it is in our power to know, since ALL have the responsibility to find the true faith.

And Pope Pius IX has told us how St. Vincenet Ferrer is off the hook for this, when he said the following:

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

So Ferrer, who was already in the true faith is able to be saved. Then he follows an antipope, but has no way to know he has done so. He was invincibly ignorant, and not stained by any guilt in the eyes of God. He still received valid sacraments, still held the Faith of a Catholic and still did the works of a Catholic.

Someone who never had come into the true faith, and who was invincibly ignorant of it, while not guilty of infidelity, would still be guilty of original sin and any actual sins they had committed, and would be condemned for those things, but not punished as severely as those who were guilty of infidelity.

People following the Vatican II antipopes have no such excuse, since as I said, ALL have the responsibility to find the true Faith, and just plain old ignorance does not excuse. Culpable ignorance and invincible ignorance are worlds apart.

I hope this helps.

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2009, 04:36:50 PM »

Parents for truth, great response! :boxer:

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2009, 05:47:34 PM »

Quote from: Prodinoscopus

The sedes will tell you that the "anti-pope" that St. Vincent Ferrer followed was not a heretic or apostate.

The question that you should be asking is how will you be saved if death finds you in a state of manifest and pertinacious schism by willfully and formally separating yourself from the Vicar of Christ.

Do you want to stake your salvation on the "common sense" judgment of a self-appointed magisterium that consists of a bunch of armchair theologians who broadcast their opinions over the internet?

For the umteenth time, acc to Prof Pastor, the GWS was merely political and while it was schismatic, the terms apostate and anti-pope do not apply. One of the terms of the settlement of the GWS was that one was left free to call either faction the true Pope. So it is true to say that at some times, the Church has had more than one Pope. If anyone has a problem with this please take it up with von Pastor( hardly a 'sede'. )

DeMaistre · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2009, 08:59:51 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Prodinoscopus, you have been listening too much to your ravening wolves in the clothing of sheep. "Armchair theologians."

So does that mean that a person who learns chemistry on their own and not in a university is an armchair chemist? Or a person who learns fitness exercises on their own and not in a gym or from a personal trainer is an armchair fitness guy?

I am sure there are self taught chemists who are complete geniuses in their field and I personally know of a self taught fitness guy who can run circles around professional fitness trainers and outperform them in many feats of strength.

Come on man. You have gone from not condemning to condemning in a matter of less than a week. If you do not agree with someone's theology it is easy to call them an armchair theologian, rather than explain how their theology is false, if it is.

DeMaistre: St. Vincent Ferrer withdrew his support of the Avignon antipopes before he died. Furthermore, St. Vincent was a baptized Catholic who received the sacraments and believed all that the Church taught, and nobody had any way of knowing that Pedro De Luna was an antipope, since as Prodinoscopus mentioned, he was not heretical. Now you may ask, where is the excuse for this Saint that allows him to still attain salvation if he dies in this state?

Simple. Invincible ignorance. We know that invincible ignorance does not save a person who is outside of the Catholic Church, because they are still guilty of original sin, and they have no recourse to the forgiveness available to the children of God. But St. Vincent, as I have mentioned had already found the true faith, but knowingly following an antipope means that we are separated from the true faith, or even doing so unknowingly when it is in our power to know, since ALL have the responsibility to find the true faith.

And Pope Pius IX has told us how St. Vincenet Ferrer is off the hook for this, when he said the following:

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

So Ferrer, who was already in the true faith is able to be saved. Then he follows an antipope, but has no way to know he has done so. He was invincibly ignorant, and not stained by any guilt in the eyes of God. He still received valid sacraments, still held the Faith of a Catholic and still did the works of a Catholic.

Someone who never had come into the true faith, and who was invincibly ignorant of it, while not guilty of infidelity, would still be guilty of original sin and any actual sins they had committed, and would be condemned for those things, but not punished as severely as those who were guilty of infidelity.

People following the Vatican II antipopes have no such excuse, since as I said, ALL have the responsibility to find the true Faith, and just plain old ignorance does not excuse. Culpable ignorance and invincible ignorance are worlds apart.

I hope this helps.

Obviously this doesn't apply to me, but would a Catholic who does not profess heresy and is completely unaware of the crisis in the Church, etc be saved if he died in a state of grace? Let's say he lives in Africa or some part of Asia where he maybe receives the invalid Novus Ordo sacraments only a few times a year and has little or no knowledge of Catholic dogma, Canon Law, etc.

CM · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2009, 09:55:30 PM »

CM · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2009, 11:03:02 PM »

Their ignorance could be destroyed by a little effort in learning the true Faith.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** June 22, 2009, 01:46:24 AM »

Quote from: Prodinoscopus

Do you want to stake your salvation on the "common sense" judgment of a self-appointed magisterium that consists of a bunch of armchair theologians who broadcast their opinions over the internet?

Contact Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD. He has been a priest for 68 - SIXTY-EIGHT - years, and a Doctor of Theology for just about as long. He rejects the usurpers, and has rather sound theological reasons to do so. God speed.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2009, 11:23:34 AM »

I don't think that you need to be a theologian or a canon lawyer to be a Catholic.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:15:54 PM »

I can't stand it when people say this, that you have to be a "doctor of theology." Haven't they heard that God reveals his secrets to the humble? Do you think that any of the apostles were "doctors of theology"?

With Vatican II you really see about how much pure intellect is worth. Wojtyla's facility with nine languages is not going to keep him out of hell.

I'd rather be a layman who knows my God, than a "Pope" like Wojtyla who worships with heretics, which even catechumens know not to do, or says that the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

But of course we are not alone and still have a hierarchy -- all it's missing is a Pope. I am guided by sedevacantist priests who correct me when I am wrong about something. For instance, they tell me not to judge Abp. Lefebvre's internal intentions, so I have stopped doing that.

We are not without intellectual ammo either. The Radecki Brothers of CMRI have written a 600-page book about the crisis called Tumultous Times. We have writers like Patrick Henry Omlor and, as Dawn recommended to me, Solange Hertz. We have the passionate and daily missives of Thomas Droleskey. It is much more likely that, should the world continue, those will be compiled and read in book form like St. Augustine's City of God, while the New Age gabble of the Ratzingers, Teilhards, Rahners, or von Balthazars of the world is consigned to the dustbin of history.

But most crucially, we have the truth. We have the spirit and the letter of the law. You know what you have in Vatican II? Bubkes. You think you have the quality of "obedience" but it is obedience to a man who isn't a Pope who presides over an institution that is not the Catholic Church.

If you poison someone, then embalm their corpse and stuff it with straw, it may still look like the person, but in reality, they are only a puppet, a mannequin. That is what has been done to the most visible structures of the Catholic Church ( though the sedes are visible as well, that's why everyone talks about them ). I doubt obedience to a stuffed corpse is worth much in the eyes of God.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:29:47 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

I don't think that you need to be a theologian or a canon lawyer to be a Catholic.

No, but it would be a good idea to know what the hell you're talking about when you attempt to critically analyze the statements of Popes and Councils. So much for being a simple, humble catholic.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2009, 03:55:01 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: DeMaistre
I don't think that you need to be a theologian or a canon lawyer to be a Catholic.

No, but it would be a good idea to know what the hell you're talking about when you attempt to critically analyze the statements of Popes and Councils. So much for being a simple, humble catholic.

What exactly are you accusing me of?

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2009, 04:19:55 PM »

Being ignorant, unjust, rash and arrogant.