Unbelievable.  Voris is an outright heretic.

"Outside the Church salvation is much more difficult." (... because Catholics have access to the Sacraments).

Isn't it ironic that St. Augustine referred to the reasoning behind BoD as a "vortex of confusion"?

Voris in a normal time in the Church would be banned from ever opening his mouth in public when it comes to Catholic doctrine or theology.

Well, I guess that was the last straw.

Mr. Voris is a confirmed Modernist and as such has lots all credibility.

These heretics invent anything so they can say that non -Catholics are not damned.

We have:

Salvation by justification alone.
Salvation by implicit faith.
Salvation by last minute baptism of desire.
Salvation by grace alone.
Salvation by invincible ignorance....

blah bla blah....

Just to corrupt the EENS dogma, and justify their true position that not only Catholics go to Heaven but that everyone can be a heir too, without any need of sacraments at all.

They would not publish my comment:

Quote

NO, MICHAEL!!

Your comment that, "And a person can only be in either a state of grace or a state of mortal sin." is just PATHETIC and FALSE.  No, instead, this is de fide Catholic teaching:

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in ORIGINAL SIN ALONE, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." (Council of Florence)

This is why little children who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven:

http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

You are a modernist, Michael, and true Catholics ought to ignore you.

Here's his pathetic video:

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/do-non-catholics-go-to-hell

Even more pathetic that they would not publish your comment, which is the true Catholic dogma.

Ridiculous. While Voris was certainly incorrect, your statements above are equally false, Ladislaus. Baptism of Desire is certainly a doctrine, probably a dogma, and at any rate, a teaching authoritatively proposed for belief by Church over several centuries cannot be harmful to the Faith, as you think it is.

Baptism of Desire is defined by Pope St. Pius X as an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with a desire for baptism that is at least implicit, following St. Alphonsus word for word. The Catechism of Trent says grace and justice can be obtained through desire for Baptism and repentance over past sins when water baptism is rendered inaccessible to the person awaiting it through no fault of his own. Trent dogmatically defines that the grace of justification can be obtained through the desire of the Sacraments, it also says the Sacraments of Penance and Baptism are alike necessary for salvation. That means Feeneyite denial of BOD is as much a mortal sin against the Faith as denial of perfect contrition with respect to the Sacrament of Penance is, nor does either Sacrament being necessary even remotely mean that the grace of justification cannot be obtained by the desire of them. Nor is the doctrine on contrition even remotely controversial to anyone who has read the teaching of Trent and its Catechism on this subject properly, which you clearly have not.

although it sometimes happen that this contrition through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament is actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire for the sacrament which is included therein ...

For whereas most other pious practices, such as alms, fasting, prayer and similar holy and commendable works, are sometimes rejected by God on account of the faults of those who perform them, contrition can never be other than pleasing and acceptable to Him. A contrite and humble heart, O God, exclaims the Prophet, thou wilt not despise. Nay more, the same Prophet declares elsewhere that, as soon as we have conceived this contrition in our hearts, our sins are forgiven by God ...Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins ...

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which may be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest.

Quote

ORIGINAL SIN

according to doctrinal definition is absense of sanctifying grace
what is absense of sanctifying grace?
MORTAL SIN

THE DEFINTION IS A NEGATIVE STATEMENT, IT IS A STATEMENT WHICH IS COMPATABLE WITH BOD AND BOB, SINCE IT MEANS THAT THE SOUL IS IN A
STATE OF MORTAL SIN. IT SEEMS LIKE SOME MAKE ORIGINAL SIN SOME SUPER SIN GREATER THAN ANY OTHER. ANY STUDY OF THE FATHERS SHOWS THAT MOST HELD MORE TO THE IDEA OF BAPTISM MAKING US MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, THE ARK OF SALVATION. HOWEVER THEY POINT OUT AT THE SAME TIME THAT MOST WERE SAVED BY MEANS OF THE FLOOD ITSELF

Quote

In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: [20] Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. PETER 3 19-20

HOW POWERFUL IS YOUR GOD! CAN HE SAVE A CATECHUMEN? NOT IN YOUR WORLD!

Not sure what you implied here, but the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin suffices for damnation in Hell. That is a dogma, not to be ever doubted or further "interpreted".

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments"

1. Heh. Is that your reason for rejecting the teaching of Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X? If you even so much as suggest that Baptism of Desire as taught by these Popes is heretical or opposed to dogma, you will fall outside the Church. It has been explained to you, by Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council, that EENS means those who are stubbornly separated from the Church (such as you are in danger of being) cannot be saved. It has been explained to you times without number, by St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, that Trent teaches no one can be saved without Baptism or the Desire thereof.

Dimondism (the denial that the grace of justification can be obtained through the desire of the sacraments) is a heresy, Ladislaus, and your sympathy for this heresy has led you to make grotesquely even if only materially heretical statements on justification in the past. I freely confess to detesting this neo-Jansenist heresy and as long as it continues to be promoted here, I and other informed Catholics will combat it to the extent we can. All who have learned the Faith well, as it has been taught both to priests and to the faithful by these and other Popes, cannot fail to do the same. The constant promotion of the Dimondite heresy on this forum is what is nauseating and no one can be a good Catholic who denies the doctrine of Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition with respect to the Sacrament of Penance, with his silly private understanding of necessity of the sacraments.

It has been shown to you before that Trent teaches that Baptism and Penance are necessary for salvation in the same way. You want to heretically claim that the Sacraments being necessary for salvation means the grace of justification cannot be obtained through the desire of the Sacraments. By your logic, a priest who explains and defends the sacred doctrine of perfect contrition to his penitents is supposedly denying the necessity of the sacraments.

2. You rely on your private judgment of Baius' condemnation. You cite the CE (which of course also teaches Baptism of Desire, but you ignore that) saying Baius thought justification in catechumens can be separated from the remission of sins, thinking this means catechumens cannot be justified. Rubbish, Baius held charity and the remission of sins was separable (the latter being infused only in water Baptism), and Pope St. Pius V, who teaches one obtains grace and justice through the Desire of Baptism and contrition for past sins in the Roman Catechism, condemned this because it was gravely erroneous.

Charity or perfect love of God by contrition always obtains the remission of sins, in catechumens and penitents alike. Fr. Marin Sola explains, “From time to time certain heretics [such as Abelard] have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” as do several other theologians explaining this condemnation, but you reject that for your own idea.

3. Once upon a time, you confidently asserted that St. Robert never said Trent taught Baptism of Desire in Session VI. When you were corrected on this, you did not humble yourself for spreading misinformation, but rather used your mistake as grounds to attack those who corrected you. And you do this often, whenever your latest theory attacking the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is disproven, you attack those who refute the heresy you promote asking them why they bother to do it. I would much rather not, but I do it so that other souls of good will may not be misled by your Jansenist Dimondite-leaning heresies.

I did not want to hurt you at the time, when you made this error about St. Robert and when you heretically claimed the grace of justification intrinsically remits all punishment for sin (making a heresy into a dogma, as you later admitted, when the relevant canon was cited to you - and this heretical understanding of justification opposed to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus originates from the Dimonds. You temerariously accused St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus of "making it up" learning this horrible way of speaking about the Doctors from the Dimonds, even though St. Alphonsus cites the Apostolic Canon that teaches it, which cites St. Ambrose's) but I should have compelled you to humble yourself and repent for your blatantly heretical statement. Your relapse into heresy after you started the "Baptism of Desire conceded" thread has only led you to greater pride and contumacy in your error than ever before.

I stand with the Doctors, the Saints, the Popes and the Church. You and the Dimonds, and all who follow you, are the enemies of the Church.