Author Topic: SSPX converting Jєωs. (Read 3929 times)

Jehanne · « **on:** March 18, 2011, 06:34:59 PM »

It's been over a week now, and still complete silence from the SSPX on the Pope's most recent book, even the international site:

http://www.sspx.org/
http://www.dici.org/

The SBC in New Hampshire did respond:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-154.html

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2011, 06:46:58 PM »

All they can do is shake their head in wonderment. :scratchchin:

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:44:20 PM »

Even worse, The Remnant has not even linked to ONE news story about it! Not one!

It's one thing not to have a lengthy article prepared yet, but not even a LINK to the story? I understand to some degree because the Remnant tied their boat to this Pope riding high on the hype in 2005 and they'd look foolish to do a 180 now.

CFN at least had a link....

Still waiting....

Jehanne · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:44:39 PM »

Within a few days of that c-word thing, they had a statement online. It's been 10 days on this one.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:48:01 PM »

But then again, if the Jєωs are covered under invincible ignorance and BOD,......

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:03:42 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

But then again, if the Jєωs are covered under invincible ignorance and BOD,......

The Catholic view is that they have no good hope of salvation if they aren't Catholic (Pius IX) so we better bust our rears to give them the Faith.

The lib extreme is that they are already saved.

The hardline extreme is that they have exactly ZERO chance to be saved if they are not formally water Baptized into the Catholic Church before death.

Both of these views are distortions of the true teaching.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:10:58 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

But then again, if the Jєωs are covered under invincible ignorance...

You are aware that this idea simply means that one is not held accountable for not knowing something which was beyond his power to know? If ignorance about something is invincible, i.e. cannot be overcome, it is impossible to incur guilt with respect to the unknown matters. Such ignorance does not do anything FOR a man, despite what some would have us think. When this concept is not distorted, it is perfectly reasonable and harmless.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:14:52 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: umblehay anmay
But then again, if the Jєωs are covered under invincible ignorance and BOD,......

The Catholic view is that they have no good hope of salvation if they aren't Catholic (Pius IX) so we better bust our rears to give them the Faith.

The lib extreme is that they are already saved.

The hardline extreme is that they have exactly ZERO chance to be saved if they are not formally water Baptized into the Catholic Church before death.

Both of these views are distortions of the true teaching.

· Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens); and baptism of desire. Baptism can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him, “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you...”[

Would this be the liberal extreme?

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:15:54 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

The hardline extreme is that they have exactly ZERO chance to be saved if they are not formally water Baptized into the Catholic Church before death.

I am a follower of Father Feeney, and no one (so far as I can tell, the brothers of the SBCs) holds to that view. You can see my comments about this here:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-154.html

(I am, of course, excluding the Dimond brothers and others like them.)

Jehanne · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:17:30 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: umblehay anmay
But then again, if the Jєωs are covered under invincible ignorance...

You are aware that this idea simply means that one is not held accountable for not knowing something which was beyond his power to know? If ignorance about something is invincible, i.e. cannot be overcome, it is impossible to incur guilt with respect to the unknown matters. Such ignorance does not do anything FOR a man, despite what some would have us think. When this concept is not distorted, it is perfectly reasonable and harmless.

Oh, this thread is degrading! (Oh, well..) We are saved in terms of what do possess, not in terms of what we do not possess. Ignorance, even if it is "invincible," is not salvific, ever.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:23:34 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: umblehay anmay
But then again, if the Jєωs are covered under invincible ignorance and BOD,......

The Catholic view is that they have no good hope of salvation if they aren't Catholic (Pius IX) so we better bust our rears to give them the Faith.

The lib extreme is that they are already saved.

The hardline extreme is that they have exactly ZERO chance to be saved if they are not formally water Baptized into the Catholic Church before death.

Both of these views are distortions of the true teaching.

· Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens); and baptism of desire. Baptism can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him, “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you...”[

Would this be the liberal extreme?

Even Saint Thomas taught that "baptism of desire" is not as good as the "real thing." However, for an adult, a valid baptism is not always a fruitful one, unlike infants, where validity insures, absolutely, fruitfulness. So, as the Roman Catechism teaches, it is good, for adults, to wait until they are properly instructed and disposed to have a valid and fruitful baptism. For children, it is also good to wait, at least until you are certain that you have an expert (preferably, a priest) to perform the ceremony. However, these days people are waiting far too long. According to Florence, for an infant, it should be days and not weeks.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:51:16 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Ignorance, even if it is "invincible," is not salvific, ever.

Which is a harmless fact, as no one is saying it is. Ignorance involves a LACK of a due good (knowledge); it is not about the possession of a certain quality, etc.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:52:14 PM »

ABL held the Catholic view.

Mea Culpa for helping derail this thread.

I withdraw my post!

Jehanne · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2011, 09:13:50 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Jehanne
Ignorance, even if it is "invincible," is not salvific, ever.

Which is a harmless fact, as no one is saying it is. Ignorance involves a LACK of a due good (knowledge); it is not about the possession of a certain quality, etc.

As with infants who die without Baptism, original sin is enough to exclude one from Heaven, but yes, this thread is, once again, "off the tracks." We can talk about this further in the Dimond Bros. thread, if you wish.

So, if everyone would agree, back to regularly scheduled programming...

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:34:23 PM »

I thought of taking umblehay's bait, then let it go. Now that it's too late --

Jehanne, someone who is saved DESPITE ( not because of ) his invincible ignorance is a member of the Church by desire, as God can see what he would have done in other circuмstances.

I know you think it's very pious to say that God always brings his elect to baptism. So did I, but the problem is that a bunch of Catholics far smarter than both of us didn't see it that way. A little humility is in order. Yes, God could see to it that all the elect are baptized, but the idea that he DOES do this is simply your fancy, you are imposing your will on God's.