Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance  (Read 5911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2020, 05:04:23 AM »

Quote
19. Would it be right to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death is damned?
          No; because, in his last hour, such a one may receive the grace to die united to the Catholic Church.
          It is not our business to say whether this or that one who was not received into the Church before his death is damned.  What we condemn is the Protestant and the heathen system of religion, because they are utterly false; but we do not condemn any person - God alone is the judge of all.


The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

 
"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2020, 05:20:04 AM »
That thread about Garrigou-Lagrange quotes a passage where he is clearly speculating. Here is what  Garrigou says in another placecwhen commenting on the Summa ( in Latin as im sure you can read it and I don’t have time translate at the moment)
“Hereticus pertinax est, quoad veritates supernaturales quas retinet, sicut philosophus scepticus, qui negat valorem ontologicuм principii contradictionis et proinde ipsius rationis, erga veritates naturales quas retinere vult ; non potest amplius eas retinere propter motivum necessarium, sed solum propter aliquod motivum contingens, fundans opinionem tantum.…
Objectio : Haereticus hunc articulum negat, non quia credit Deum fallibilem in revelando, sed quia non apprehendit hunc articulum ut revelatum. Alios autem articulos tenet, quia apprehendit illos ut revelatos. Unde non recedit ab auctoritate Dei revelantis, sed solum a propositione Ecclesiae, et alios articulos tenet fide infusa…
® : Haec omnia essent vera, si sola inspiratio privata vel examen privatum esset proxima regula fidei, sed Christus voluit et nobis revelavit Ecclesiam esse proximam fidei regulam ; et ideo ille qui hanc revelationem cognoscens, recedit pertinaciter ab Ecclesia, non solum recedit a conditione sine qua non fidei catholicae, sed recedit ab ipso motivo formali ipsius fidei infusae, etiam ut infusa est, et non solum ut catholica est.”
He is clear that the proximate rule of faith is the proposition of the Church and so a Protestant ( or any 9ther pertinacious heretic) who rejects that does not have the faith.( and it follows that they could not be saved) The case of people who have no opportunity of knowing the Faith  is different( as Fr. Muller  who I linked to before clearly points out)
Great, instead of following the clear dogmas on EENS, now we are going to follow Garrigou LaGrange's unclear interpretation, interpreted by Banezian because he says Ladislaus understands it wrong, according to Banezian (and Banezian is going to write it in Latin, so nobody understands what he is saying ). Insanity!

No, I'll stick with the clear dogmatic infallible Council of Florence. If these dogmas do not mean what they CLEARLY say, then words have no meaning whatsoever:


Quote
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”







Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2020, 01:25:02 PM »
One of the quotes from mueller above says that at a minimum a soul could receive BOD by desiring to do whatever God commands for salvation.  At present that’s my position too but the “strict EENS” camp would disagree 

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2020, 01:56:26 PM »
One of the quotes from mueller above says that at a minimum a soul could receive BOD by desiring to do whatever God commands for salvation.  At present that’s my position too but the “strict EENS” camp would disagree
Not sure what the strict EENS camp is, but the literal EENS camp finds that one of the commands God gave for salvation says that unless a man is baptized by water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Perhaps someone should find  where and under what circuмstances that command gets rescinded. After all, that is what is really needed for salvation via a BOD.

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2020, 02:26:41 PM »
Not sure what the strict EENS camp is, but the literal EENS camp 
Touche, very good, duly noted "Literal EENSers".