[Daegus]

Here are some threads on "C"AF where there are many examples of heresies. The mere fact that there are so many heretics and apostates infiltrating these forums should bear witness to the fact that this is not a Catholic forum. Take note that many of these discussions go on for pages and pages because the people there need to actually debate whether an article of faith is an article of faith or not.

Here we see various members of "C"AF denying the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, by using vague terminology like saying that people are saved "through" or "by" the Catholic Church while somehow being outside of it. (The good Ab. L made the same error unfortunately. You have to be IN the Church in some way to be saved. Saying otherwise is just a denial of the dogma):

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=582880

"Catholics", completely devoid of common sense, denying that all grace comes through Mary:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=593484

"Catholics" struggling to answer a question with a very obvious answer as to why God is good. I haven't read the entire thread but I wouldn't be surprised if some fall into heresy:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=587154

Here we see a few "Catholics" saying that God's mind can be changed, which is a compete and utter heresy. God's mind does not change. These heretics don't seem to understand that if God wants you to pray for something before you get it, it is His will that you pray for it so that you get it. Just because you prayed for something that doesn't mean you changed His mind. It means you did what He wanted you to do all along. God does not change. Think, people.:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=593636

More heresy stating that God's mind can be changed:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=573621

Here we see "Catholic" heretics saying that the Divine Mercy devotion, which is definitely not of God because of the various problems with the apparitions (search this forum if you don't know of this), is not only a good devotion, but that it is "of God":

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=587759

Here we see the Modernists whimpering about being stay at home moms:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=588311

More "Catholics" struggling to answer the question of someone who wonders why God would create him if He knew he was going to Hell:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=571792

Here we see faithless apostates criticizing the mortifications of Saints who are in Heaven, while they themselves are not and therefore could not possibly understand why these Saints would do what they did:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=594463

"Catholics" struggling to provide an answer to a person who doubts the existence of mortal sins:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=595153

"Catholics" suggesting that someone should avoid trying to convert a Muslim friend but "respect their decision". Eric Hilbert had to destroy the thread because too many people were either giving the truth, or fighting over their heresies or some other obscure reason:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=589639

"Catholics" struggling to provide a cogent argument for why the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=593640

The list just goes on and on...

Still believe these people are Catholic? While the threads I posted don't reflect what every* member thinks, it should shock you that so many who claim to be Catholic are allowed to spread error and nothing is done about it.

[Vladimir]

Daegus,

Relax.

[Daegus]

Daegus,

Relax.

I don't know what would lead you to believe I'm not relaxed. I'm just showing people that this is definitely not a Catholic forum so they should either not go there are at all or be careful if they feel the need to. I've done the same thing with Fish Eaters.

[Charles]

Post a thread on Hell and watch 'em squirm

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=506443

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=450003

Look at the first replies on both threads. Sad.

[twiceborn]

Here we see a few "Catholics" saying that God's mind can be changed, which is a compete and utter heresy. God's mind does not change. These heretics don't seem to understand that if God wants you to pray for something before you get it, it is His will that you pray for it so that you get it. Just because you prayed for something that doesn't mean you changed His mind. It means you did what He wanted you to do all along. God does not change. Think, people.:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=593636

More heresy stating that God's mind can be changed:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=573621

Ah, so that pernicious heresy, namely, Open Theism...seems to be making it's way into the minds of Catholics after all...even if not under the same name or form.

In truth, Daegus, what you are seeing isn't so much Catholics being openly deifying Church teaching but of them expressing what they, either by poor catechesis or none, have learned. Note how there is virtually no mention from them of what the holy doctors of The Church have taught or what the councils have defined.

The consequence of God changing his mind in response to our choices is the denial of his infallible and exhaustive foreknowledge of our future free acts. And this was being done even during the time of Pope Pius XII. As he states in Humani Generis:

"It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council."

We must guard against this diabolical notion which has spread among evangelical Churches and, if unchecked, will take hold upon Catholics.

That said, that God is absolutely immutable (cannot change) and that he knows infallibly our future free choices is defined teaching of The Church. Statements to the contrary are therefore heretical.

[Telesphorus]

Here we see a few "Catholics" saying that God's mind can be changed, which is a compete and utter heresy. God's mind does not change. These heretics don't seem to understand that if God wants you to pray for something before you get it, it is His will that you pray for it so that you get it. Just because you prayed for something that doesn't mean you changed His mind. It means you did what He wanted you to do all along. God does not change. Think, people.:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=593636

More heresy stating that God's mind can be changed:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=573621

Ah, so that pernicious heresy, namely, Open Theism...seems to be making it's way into the minds of Catholics after all...even if not under the same name or form.

In truth, Daegus, what you are seeing isn't so much Catholics being openly deifying Church teaching but of them expressing what they, either by poor catechesis or none, have learned. Note how there is virtually no mention from them of what the holy doctors of The Church have taught or what the councils have defined.

The consequence of God changing his mind in response to our choices is the denial of his infallible and exhaustive foreknowledge of our future free acts. And this was being done even during the time of Pope Pius XII. As he states in Humani Generis:

"It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council."

We must guard against this diabolical notion which has spread among evangelical Churches and, if unchecked, will take hold upon Catholics.

That said, that God is absolutely immutable (cannot change) and that he knows infallibly our future free choices is defined teaching of The Church. Statements to the contrary are therefore heretical.

Good post.  An interesting article on the topic is at that Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  It rejects the arguments that claim that foreknowledge destroys free will:

I cannot change the future – by anything I have done, am doing, or will do – from what it is going to be. But I can change the future from what it might have been. I may carefully consider the appearance of my garden, and after a bit of thought, mulling over a few alternatives, I decide to cut down the apple tree. By so doing, I change the future from what it might have been. But I do not change it from what it will be. Indeed, by my doing what I do, I contribute – in a small measure – to making the future the very way it will be.”Similarly, I cannot change the present from the way it is. I can only change the present from the way it might have been, from the way it would have been were I not doing what I am doing right now. And finally, I cannot change the past from the way it was. In the past, I changed it from what it might have been, from what it would have been had I not done what I did.
“We can change the world from what it might have been; but in doing that we contribute to making the world the way it was, is, and will be. We cannot – on pain of logical contradiction – change the world from the way it was, is, or will be.”

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

[s2srea]

Daegus- great post.

The sad part is that it seems they (at least one member who was against it) recognize themselves another, pre-VII, Church.

"We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved."

which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church where alone is salvation."

1) These quotes are not in line with current Church teaching. There has been official Magesterial modification to the discernment of these theological truths in the past (at least) 100 years.

2) There is not ONE docuмented occurrence where the Catholic Church has declared ONE HUMAN SOUL to be in Hell -- not a single one (Satan, of course, is not a human soul). In contrast, by canonization the Church has declared innumerable souls to live in the Presence of God, which we call Heaven.

The emphasis on hell, damnation, fear, Pharisaical legalism and pompous, condescending righteousness is very much a part of the counter-reformation, pre-conciliar Church that I grew up in.

When we stand before Communion and pray as Jesus taught us, we don't say, "Our Judge," "Our Condemnor." "Our sentencer-to-hell," "Our unmerciful lawgiver...." we say, "Our Father" or, as some say best translated from the Aramaic, "Daddy."

I thank "Daddy" every day that the theological emphasis has evolved into an infinitely loving, infinitely merciful God Who desires relationship with all of us, as the Trinity is in relationship by Its very Nature.

I'm certainly not saying that there are no penalties, no consequences for sin -- but surely the long, grim post belongs to our past that is bound by rigidity and a slave-like model, not to the love of a Father and His children.

[Canuk the Lionheart]

Daegus,

Relax.

I don't know what would lead you to believe I'm not relaxed. I'm just showing people that this is definitely not a Catholic forum so they should either not go there are at all or be careful if they feel the need to. I've done the same thing with Fish Eaters.

I'm with Vladimir on this one, any Catholic with even a moderate sense of orthodoxy will see the CAF'ites as what they really are; that is "Catholics" in the same sense as the Anglicans and Lutherans (ie. modern or "reformed"). It's no great secret that they preach a modernist faith there. And sense any intelligent discussion on the current crisis have been banned, just treat CAF as you would any Protestant forum.

[stevusmagnus]

Chaollam 2010 at least admits he worships in a changed or modified religion and not the religion of his past. He has rejected the caricature of true Catholicism he grew up with (rejecting true Catholicism along with it) in favor of the new Conciliar religion.

His post is sad more than anything else, as he completely fails to realize that the old Faith never got rid of the notions he so loves (merciful God, relationship with Him, etc. The Old Faith integrated these truths with other elements of Faith (Hell, Justice, etc.) What we have now is a complete absence of any talk of sin, Hell, etc. and total focus on mercy and love to the point that doctrine is compromised and the liturgy is compromised.

He has swapped a negative caricature of the Faith for a "positive" caricature of the Faith. Unfortunately the "positive" caricature has institutionalized itself as the Conciliar Church's view, at least for now.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Daegus,

Relax.

I don't know what would lead you to believe I'm not relaxed. I'm just showing people that this is definitely not a Catholic forum so they should either not go there are at all or be careful if they feel the need to. I've done the same thing with Fish Eaters.

Vladimir doesn't get concerned about such things because he's not exactly what one would call a full Trad. Don't take it personal.

[Gregory I]

"It depends on their culpability. Do you know a single American Protestant who has NOT heard of the Catholic Church?

If a person has the MEANS to know, has HEARD, and is CAPABLE of knowing, he is NOT, I repeat, absolutely NOT invincibly ignorant. That means for about 99.99999% of American Protestants, any IGNORANCE they experience is willful.

And guess what dear friends? Willful ignorance of the truth is a mortal sin.

So no, the odds are not stacked in their favor. I am a convert, and I try to tell my family ALL THE TIME about being a Catholic. They continuously reject. Will they go to heaven?

No, not if they die unrepentant."

I posted this today in CA.

Let's start counting until I receive an infraction. I am leo_the_great there. :)

[twiceborn]

If a person has the MEANS to know, has HEARD, and is CAPABLE of knowing, he is NOT, I repeat, absolutely NOT invincibly ignorant. That means for about 99.99999% of American Protestants, any IGNORANCE they experience is willful.

The problem I see with the whole issue of invincible ignorance is that people who delve into it, are more interested in finding out excuses for non-Catholics to remain as they are and for means by which they may be saved without joining The Church.

It is, in truth a completely meaningless and fruitless endeavor to engage in such speculation. It offers absolutely no advantage when it comes to evangelization and does much to encourage a lax, indifferent mindset. It leads people to wrongly presume in God's mercy.

Also, the person who is invincibly ignorant may not be guilty of the sin of rejecting the faith, but that doesn't means he is automatically saved. We are saved by grace, not knowledge and our fallen condition is such that we stand in an absolute need of the sacraments (particularly baptism) in order to heal our fallen nature. Thus, the necessity of joining The Church is not simply one of precept, but also of means.

It is quite baffling when I see a Catholic in some forum vehemently proclaiming that The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ and then when asked wether one can be saved outside of it or if non-Catholics are damned, he will pull the breaks and start making qualifications and excuses, very much negating everything he had proclaimed previously about The Church.

We are in such a mess these days.

[stevusmagnus]

I want to make sure I understand. Are some of you advocating a Feenyite position on EENS as the Catholic position? Or do you understand that the two are not the same.

The CAF crowd ranges anywhere from believing that being a member of the Church definitely assists one in being saved, but is not exactly necessary, to believing in almost universal salvation.

The Catholic position is that one must be united to the Body of the Church or at least the Soul of the Church to be saved. Normally this is done through water baptism, though Tradition has recognized Baptisms of Desire and Blood also. It is also Church teaching that the invinvibly ignorant will not be NECESSARILY damned, but still are in a tough spot.

If anyone is saved who dies not having been water baptized it is in spite of this fact and not because of it. We know that the position of non-Catholics towards salvation is dire, as Pius IX condemned the error that there is "good hope for the salvation of non-catholics". Some hope for some of them? Perhaps. But not likely.

Thus the mission of the Church to spread the Truth to as many souls as possible and efforts to convert non-Catholics.

[twiceborn]

The Catholic position is that one must be united to the Body of the Church or at least the Soul of the Church to be saved.

Is a protestant or non-believer united to the soul of The Church, even while showing no explicit sign of wanting to convert to the faith? I would answer in the negative.

I think that a person may be said to be united to the soul of The Church (and thus baptism of desire/blood, applies to them) only when there is a clear desire for him to join The Catholic Church (a catechumen for example). If such a person dies before being baptized, then yes...that person can be saved in virtue of his desire.

[stevusmagnus]

It is amazing how posters over there love to RE-HASH the excommunication debate, even though it is now a moot point! I think they wish the excommunications were still at issue. Now that they aren't they'll simply rehash the excommunication argument anyway.