Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ladislaus

Those of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads.  Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted.  As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion.  We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error.  As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along.  I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these.  They'll know the truth at their judgment.

Except Ladislaus has found NO authority who has ever noticed these grave errors being taught by the Church for centuries. He has condemned others for NOT doing their own theology, like he has. Ladi believes he is more intelligent than all others who came before him, thus his judgments and theology are infallible. The truth is that Ladislaus can't even have a theological opinion, let alone dismiss those who have true theological opinions.

You keep promoting this lie that "ALL OTHERS BEFORE" [me] promoted BoD and that somehow I am the SOLE rejector of BoD in all of human history.  As I've pointed out many times before, SJB, you are simply not honest and have an axe to grind on this issue.  If you were to submit an actual genuine theogical argument for BoD, I'd be all ears.  I have YET to see ANYTHING along those lines.  See my post just above.  At no point has "The Church" taught "errors" for "centuries".  For centuries the Church has allowed people to hold to the opinion rooted in speculative theology alone that BoD exists.  I have seen ZERO actual real concrete theological evidence that such a thing exists.

I'm going to start doing the roscoe thing:


"There's no such thing as BoD."   :smoke-pot:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Quote

Will any of the adherents of I.I. stand up and define what exactly is it and who qualifies for it?

I like to tell people who mutter "invincible ignorance" as if it's some kind of difficulty that they're proud of, "ANYONE who can pronounce the words, 'invincibly ignorant,' doesn't qualify."  Or, "If you know someone who can say, 'invincibly ignorant', you can be sure, they're not one of them."

Quote from: Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, DZ. 1647

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. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [ 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [ Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

You would, I guess.

 Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay[/u]

From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.  It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church:  ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’  When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell.  Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  This must be preached.”
 
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church.  He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Notice that the three threads that I started are about Heroin BOD, the belief that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor to be baptized (of course), nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

I've been doing only that for quite some time, and these people like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.

They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion",  can be saved even if they has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
 

That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.

.


So it would seem the discussion involving 'invincible ignorance' and the arguments based on it as if it were some dogmatic principle (but found nowhere in Scripture or the Fathers of the early Church, nor in the record of the great missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier) has run its course, and relevant discussion has moved on to more fruitful topics.  Alternatively, some of the less informed (which see) have accepted it as axiomatic and proceed with their defective thinking so as to be unafraid to deny defined dogmas which they would unwisely overturn because they think they "know better" than that, because they're, well, invincibly ignorant of how the Church in fact teaches otherwise.

Quote from: bowler

I don't see any mention of invincible ignorance in any of these quotes by trad clergy. They (and all Heroin BODers like SJB and LOT and Ambrose) simply believe that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ or the Trinity.

You rarely see anyone mention invincible ignorance anymore, that's old news, they've moved on. Why even discuss it anymore?

Quote

 Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay[/u]

From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1.  Page 216:  “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.  Page 217:  “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.  It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church:  ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’  When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell.  Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  This must be preached.”

 
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:  “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church.  He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

 

Why doesn't +F be honest and just come out with a revised Nicene Creed to reflect his different faith, "...I believe in three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins including original sin,...?"  

He already professes that it's okay to question defined dogma, EENS, because he questions it, right here:  

"And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church.  We know this.  And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church?"



If he didn't think it was okay to question defined dogma, then why would he be doing so, on record?


A)  He begins with the (false) axiom that we all know that there are souls in heaven who never knew the Catholic Faith, and from there proceeds to question defined dogma.

B)  The immediate consequence, is his asking the question, how could it possibly be true (even though it has been defined ex cathedra) that outside the Church there is no salvation?


.