Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance  (Read 846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • Reputation: +232/-80
  • Gender: Male
Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2020, 02:53:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Perhaps someone should find  where and under what circumstances that command gets rescinded. After all, that is what is really needed for salvation via a BOD.
    Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lol 

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3588
    • Reputation: +1877/-1067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #31 on: February 13, 2020, 03:37:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ...the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lol
    Dogma is the final word, if it needs to be interpreted then it was useless. Who's interpretation then are we to believe without a doubt? You see, on this subject of EENS it is you who interprets according to your own desires, and thus you are a ship adrift with a dragging anchor or maybe no anchor at all.

    What is there to interpret is these CLEAR dogmas, that not one clear dogmatic decree has ever "nuanced" in over 500 years. If these clear words do not mean what they say, then words have no meaning:

    Quote
    Dogmas are the final word from the Holy Ghost, being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous. . Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.
     

     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 Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved,
     
     Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
     
     
     Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
     
     
    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.”
     
     
    Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
     
     Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
     
     
     Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
     
     
    Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
     
     

     Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
     
     
     Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism
    Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
     
     
     Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
     
     
     Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
     
     
     Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
     


    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3588
    • Reputation: +1877/-1067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #32 on: February 13, 2020, 03:56:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lol
    Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:

    St. Francis Xavier:
    Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
    One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3588
    • Reputation: +1877/-1067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #33 on: February 13, 2020, 04:03:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Here are St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. John Chrysostom speaking clearly against EVEN the explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen:

     

    St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

     

    St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”

     

    St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”

     

    St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”

     

    St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘ they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

     

     

     

     

    St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

     

    “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

     

    St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:

    “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

     

     

     

    St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:

    “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

     

     

    St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”

     

    It should be noted that since the term “baptism of desire” was not in use at the time, one won’t find St. John Chrysostom or any other father explicitly rejecting that term. They reject baptism of desire when they reject the concept that unbaptized catechumens can be saved without Baptism, as St. John Chrysostom repeatedly does.

     

    St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”

     

     

     

    St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:

    “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”

     

     

     

    St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:

    “Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”

     

    The “seal” is the fathers’ term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism. And here we see St. John affirming the apostolic truth held by all the fathers: that no one – including a catechumen – is saved without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

     

    St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”

     

    St. John Chrysostom clearly rejected any possibility of salvation for one who has not received the Sacrament of Baptism. He affirmed the words of Christ in John 3:5 with an unequivocally literal understanding, which is the unanimous teaching of Tradition and the teaching of defined Catholic dogma.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Online poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15865
    • Reputation: +974/-3809
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #34 on: February 13, 2020, 10:54:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the Baltimore Catechism;

    Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
    A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
    1.(1) Has been validly baptized;
    2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
    3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

    Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the CatholicChurch to be the true Church?
    A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

    Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
    A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1042
    • Reputation: +232/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #35 on: February 14, 2020, 05:11:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:

    St. Francis Xavier:
    Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
    One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
    My point wasn't that strictest view = not nuanced per se.  My critique was of the particular herneneutic being used.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1042
    • Reputation: +232/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #36 on: February 14, 2020, 05:19:59 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the Baltimore Catechism;

    Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
    A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
    1.(1) Has been validly baptized;
    2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
    3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

    Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the CatholicChurch to be the true Church?
    A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

    Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
    A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church
    Baltimore isn't absolutely infallible though, and the strictest EENS people would say that it is wrong in the light of Florence.


    My issue at the end of the day is that I can't believe that the writers of baltimore, the catechism of St Pius X, Mueller Catechism (allows BOD by "desiring to do all that God has required for salvation") all the clergy, whether hermeneutic of continuity *or* trad, are all just idiots who can't read the plain words of Florence, yet that is the logical conclusion of the *way* guys like Stubborn and Last Tradhican (lol that name is fitting here :D ) argue for a strict view of EENS.

    I actually, personally, have little interest in the "Feeneyism is heresy" line of reasoning, I suspect that Feeneyites who take their position in good faith will be shown mercy if they are wrong, just as I suspect non Feeneyites will be shown mercy if they are wrong under the same circumstances.

    I'm actually not even *that* perturbed by the idea that they might be *right* (though I'm nearly certain Trent is teaching BOD as a possibility *at least* for the catechumen) as to the final conclusion.  

    My bigger issue is the argument.  Like, I'm admittedly a new convert.  And apparently I'm supposed to *absolutely* believe my own interpretation of Florence over what all the clergy say.  Like that, by itself, is a huge stretch.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1042
    • Reputation: +232/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #37 on: February 14, 2020, 05:22:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:

    St. Francis Xavier:
    Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
    One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
    Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.

    I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD.  If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.

    And St. Francis Xavier may not have believed that, but IDK if that's what he's addressing here, as I'll explain.

    However, assuming a given Japanese soul was *not* saved (and that *is* the presumption, their deaths having *appeared* to occur outside the Church), there is nothing that can be done for them, nothing that can change their fate.  


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10093
    • Reputation: +3950/-949
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #38 on: February 14, 2020, 05:34:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lol
    It is funny how the literal meaning is *always* abandoned whenever that meaning is interpreted. What gets me, is the ones who abandon the meaning by interpreting it, believe the opposite, that the literal meaning is an interpretation.

    "One Lord, One faith, one baptism" does not mean what it says.
    "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins" does not mean what it says.
    John 3:5 does not mean what it says.
    "Outside the Church there is no salvation" does not mean what it says.
    As such, "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding" does not at all mean what it says.

    "Sacred dogmas must be understood as the Church understands them" has become the dogma which demands that everyone have their own interpretation of dogma, and for *that*, you cannot escape  applying prot interpretive principles to dogma.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3588
    • Reputation: +1877/-1067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #39 on: February 14, 2020, 08:42:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.

    I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD.  If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.
    That's your individual interpretation mixing a bunch of teachers and coming up with an interpretation according to your own desires.
    1) Your concoction is not salvation by BOD, it is salvation by implicit faith by belief in a God that rewards for the invincible ignorant.
    2) And you add your own twist that God would "illuminate to the truth of the Catholic faith after their deaths"
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20478
    • Reputation: +11239/-5527
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #40 on: February 14, 2020, 08:57:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.

    I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD.  If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.

    And St. Francis Xavier may not have believed that, but IDK if that's what he's addressing here, as I'll explain.

    However, assuming a given Japanese soul was *not* saved (and that *is* the presumption, their deaths having *appeared* to occur outside the Church), there is nothing that can be done for them, nothing that can change their fate.  

    No, St. Francis Xavier clearly did not believe this.  You can read how deeply he was moved by their sorrow.  If there was any doctrinally-acceptable way to console them, he would have done so.


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +165/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #41 on: February 14, 2020, 09:35:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My bigger issue is the argument.  Like, I'm admittedly a new convert.  And apparently I'm supposed to *absolutely* believe my own interpretation of Florence over what all the clergy say.  Like that, by itself, is a huge stretch.
    This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.) 

    Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1042
    • Reputation: +232/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #42 on: February 14, 2020, 09:41:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)

    Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.
    Honestly this is my overarching point.  And that's why I make the point that I do.  I am not aware of ANY living clergy who take the literal view, and I'm only aware of Fr. Wathen in the post crisis past.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3588
    • Reputation: +1877/-1067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #43 on: February 14, 2020, 09:47:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BODers say that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Council of Trent, while at the same time they totally reject what they say Trent teaches, BOD of the catechumen, by their REAL belief that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.  Trent does not clearly teach baptism of desire of the catechumen, yet they cling on to the ONLY "dogma that teaches BOD", which is not clear, meanwhile, they reject the CLEAREST dogma on EENS, from the Coucil of Florence,  that reiterates the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, and is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and is not opposed by any Father, Doctor, saint or council, the need to believe explicitly in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, that they reject completely! They reject the very line of Trent that they always bring up, and they reject all the dogmas on EENS to arrive at their real belief, that anyone can be saved in any religion. They reject ALL the dogmas on EENS.

     

    The BODers say this unclear dogmatic decree means that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity:

     

    Quote
    Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV.

    A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
     
     By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.


     Unclear? Ladislaus has here many times pointed out that the Trent quote means you need both baptism and explicit desire, which he can explain further here himself, but I will add that in the Spanish translation it is very clear that you need both it says "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof". And this makes all sense to me because coming from a Spanish background, my Catholic school educated relatives going back to being born in the 1890's (I am in my 60's now now) had never once heard of anything but damnation for all non-Catholics, specially Protestants. That is what I was always taught. I never heard of baptism of desire till I read the Americanist Baltimore Catechism in the 1990's. It makes sense to me that the BC would teach that anyone can be saved outside of the Church to avoid getting American minority Catholics lynched.

    Quote
    http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1
     
     CAP. IV. Se da idea de la justificación del pecador, y del modo con que se hace en la ley de gracia.
     


    En las palabras mencionadas se insinúa la descripción de la justificación del pecador: de suerte que es tránsito del estado en que nace el hombre hijo del primer Adan, al estado de gracia y de adopción de los hijos de Dios por el segundo Adan Jesucristo nuestro Salvador. Esta traslación, o tránsito no se puede lograr, después de promulgado el Evangelio, sin el bautismo, o sin el deseo de él; según está escrito: No puede entrar en el reino de los cielos sino el que haya renacido del agua, y del Espíritu Santo.



    The BODers say that this CLEAR dogmatic decree does not mean that someone has to have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved:


    Quote
    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.”
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10093
    • Reputation: +3950/-949
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance
    « Reply #44 on: February 14, 2020, 09:50:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)

    Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.
    Yes, the popular or well respected 19th and 20th century theologians liked to interpret dogma, as though they are parables, or like what was taught at V2 where nearly every thing they said is ambiguous. But prior to V2, the Church was not at all ambiguous in her dogmatic teachings - anymore than you would teach something that did not mean what you said. Would that be something you would do? - Honest question.
      
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16