No one disagrees that there is no salvation outside the Church. The question is "Who is a member of the Church?" What Popes and councils said on this question has to be interpreted in context, and it's not a matter of private judgment. The dogma must be understood in the way the Church understands it. I highly recommend "The Catholic Church and Salvation" by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton on this topic.Give an example of the Church declaring anything that is not understood as declared. Also, what do you mean when you say "the Church".
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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 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.”
The question is "Who is a member of the Church?"
You are seemingly upholding the SSPX position. You therefore would have to absurdly hold that unbaptized pagans who have not the faith are members of the Catholic Church and are saved by BOD. That is blatant nonsense.First, there is no "SSPX position" I am a member of the SSPX, and people within the Society hold different views on this.
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.”
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16:
“Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849:
“In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation."
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928:
“The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904:
“Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
I could quote much more. It is the unanimous teachings of the true Popes that condemns the SSPX.
A member of the Church is a validly sacramentally baptized Roman Catholic who does not have the misfortune to leave via heresy, apostasy, or schism.Feeneyism has been condemned by the Holy Office. I highly recommend Msgr. Fenton's commentary on the condemnation of the Feeneyites
A member of the Church is a validly sacramentally baptized Roman Catholic who does not have the misfortune to leave via heresy, apostasy, or schism.Absolutely correct.
Absolutely correct.That is Feeneyism and has been condemned
So you reject the position of the SSPX yet you adhere to them. You are in a non-Catholic sect and must leave it.The SSPX DOES NOT have an official position on this. I recently spoke to a SSPX seminary professor/priest who hold the same view as I.
You pretty much said the same thing. You replaced Roman Catholic with "at least hold to the Nicene Creed". You seem to be confused. Sedevacantism is the Catholic position. The Church has infallibly taught that heretics can not hold offices in the Church. To reject sedevacantism is to either hold that the post-Vatican II claimants to the papacy are not heretics (an idea that is indefensible) or hold that heretics can hold offices in the Catholic Church (an idea which is indefensible).No, you are confused. I said that a validly baptized person( that is, Catholic, Orthodox/schismatic , Protestant) who holds to at least the Nicene Creed can be saved
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power."
Then you are ignorant of the teachings of your false sect. Your founder taught the heresy I am condemning.That is Msgr. Lefebvre Personal position. It's not binding on anyone. So which group are you a part of? CMRI? Sanborn/Dolan's group?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 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.”
Your current heretical leader teaches the same.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:
“… 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.)
No, you are confused. I said that a validly baptized person( that is, Catholic, Orthodox/schismatic , Protestant) who holds to at least the Nicene Creed can be savedI can't read your mind. You are definitely confused because you reject what your SSPX leaders say yet you adhere to them. You do the same with the Vatican II Church. It is a heretical position to adhere to heretics. I interpreted "at least holds to the Nicene Creed" to mean that is the minimum requirement to be a Roman Catholic, the basic dogmas. Others say the Trinity and the Incarnation is the basic dogmas and the other Roman Catholic dogmas are known as deeper dogmas that require pertinacity if one contradicts them. So now I know what you mean by that. You are still a heretic who says heretics can go to heaven.
I can't read your mind. You are definitely confused because you reject what your SSPX leaders say yet you adhere to them. You do the same with the Vatican II Church. It is a heretical position to adhere to heretics. I interpreted "at least holds to the Nicene Creed" to mean that is the minimum requirement to be a Roman Catholic, the basic dogmas. Others say the Trinity and the Incarnation is the basic dogmas and the other Roman Catholic dogmas are known as deeper dogmas that require pertinacity if one contradicts them. So now I know what you mean by that. You are still a heretic who says heretics can go to heaven.A seminary professor/priest of the SSPX holds the same view as me. There is no official position. How many times do I have to say it? Material heretics can be saved.
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
That is Feeneyism and has been condemnedIf they are condemned why are they part of the diocese structure and approved by the local bishops and the man you call pope?
A seminary professor/priest of the SSPX holds the same view as me. There is no official position. How many times do I have to say it?Let me break this down. Do you condemn your SSPX leaders for teaching heresy? yes or no. A yes means you must separate from them and thus cease being a member of the SSPX, a no means you support their positions and thus you would be contradicting yourself because you previously rejected what they teach.
Let me break this down. Do you condemn your SSPX leaders for teaching heresy? yes or no. A yes means you must separate from them and thus cease being a member of the SSPX, a no means you support their positions and thus you would be contradicting yourself because you previously rejected what they teach.No I don't condemn them. What they said was erroneous.
If they are condemned why are they part of the diocese structure and approved by the local bishops and the man you call pope?Who do you mean? Which group are you referring to?
No I don't condemn them. What they said was erroneous.That is a foolish position. You condemn their writings but not them who teach it. That does not make any sense. The logical position is to condemn them as outrageous heretics who deny very basic dogmas of the Church.
Who do you mean? Which group are you referring to?What planet are you on to ask me that question? You do not understand what I said and you are telling us that the "Feeneyites" are condemned? How old are you?
That is a foolish position. You condemn their writings but not them who teach it. That does not make any sense. The logical position is to condemn them as outrageous heretics who deny very basic dogmas of the Church.They made a mistake. That is an error, not a heresy.
They made a mistake. That is an error, not a heresy.If what they said isn't heresy then nothing is heresy. Obviously that is not true.
What planet are you on to ask me that question? You do not understand what I said and you are telling us that the "Feeneyites" are condemned?What Feeneyites are part of the Diocease? Do you mean the St. Benedict Center? Those guys are not canonically recognized
Such a statement is heretical. It amounts to professing that Protestantism and "Orthodoxy" is the true faith which is heretical. To say that those who deny Church teaching are in the Church is heretical.The true Faith is contained in the Nicene Creed. If they hold to that, and aren't formal heretics, they can be saved. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange
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.”
What Feeneyites are part of the Diocease? Do you mean the St. Benedict Center? Those guys are not canonically recognizedThe Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Benedict Center in Still River community is approved and in full communion with the local diocese and the Church. The SSPX is not. see for yourself https://www.saintbenedict.com/ (https://www.saintbenedict.com/)
From their website
"The individuals who work and reside at Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, NH, are Catholic men and women who live in community according to their own chosen set of rules. While canonically these individuals remain in good standing in the Catholic Church, neither Saint Benedict Center nor the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary enjoys any recognition, canonical or otherwise, in the Universal Roman Catholic Church or in the Diocese of Manchester.
The Slaves of the Immaculate heart of Mary, St. Benedict Center in Still River community is approved and in full communion with the local diocese and the Church. The SSPX is not.F
If the "Feeneyites" were condemned as you stated, how come they are approved by the man you call pope?
How old are you?
The fact that you are calling them Protestants and "Orthodox" means they are non-Catholic and thus committed an act of heresy, schism, or apostasy which renders them as non-Catholics. To say they are not heretics but non-heretical non-Catholics is muddy garbage that is heretical.Thank you. There's no need going any further with you
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
I condemn Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange as a heretic.
FI am talking about Still River, please provide proof for what you claim.
They themselves say that they are not recognized by the Church
That is Feeneyism and has been condemnedI was just talking about this with 2vermont. She asked if I defended sedes when they are attacked as schismatic. I do not think sedes are really schismatic. I think they are just scandalized by Popes who seem to be heretics and are acting rationally. I am really not a sedevacvantist but I understand where they are coming from. There are good non-sede Catholics who are so scandalized by Francis that they are praying for his death. And as far as salvation goes I am not a Feeneyite, but I tend to believe that very few are saved, even among Catholics, and disagree with the opinions of modern theologians from a hundred to sixty years ago that most Christians (including protestants and orthodox) are saved. The great lights of the firmament who shone just a few years before Vatican II.
https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2005/12/13/condemnation-of-fr-leonard-feeney-2/
By the way, if you're a Sedevacantist, you are a schismatic. So you better hope some schismatic can be saved
He says that salvation is given to those "beyond the border of the Church". That is heretical. He says Protestants can be of good will, that is heretical. He says Protestants and the "Orthodox" are Christians, that is heretical. He is a heretic. He identifies the "Orthodox" as schismatics and says they can be saved, directly contrary to the Council of Florence.Go pound sand. You are a heretical Feeneyite and a schismatic. Garrigou was a staunch anti-Modernist and perhaps the last orthodox Thomist. He was Pius XII's closest advisor for many years. Mathew is far too lenient with who he allows on CI
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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
No one disagrees that there is no salvation outside the Church. The question is "Who is a member of the Church?"
Wrong question. No one can be member of the Church without Sacramental Baptism.Agreed, and Protestants/Orthodox who are validly baptized are members of the Church
And of course, the Protestants and Orthodox who die validly baptized and holding to the Nicene Creed are saved through the Church. They are members of the Church, not saved outside of it
What is this?The Nicene Creed contains the essentials of the Christian faith. Without holding to that, one is not even a Christian (let alone a Catholic)
Stopping at the Nicene Creed?
The Nicene Creed contains the essentials of the Christian faith. Without holding to that, one is not even a Christian (let alone a Catholic)
Articles of faith defined at later Councils are necessary to be believed too.Yes, for direct members of the Church. The Nicene Creed is the minimum standard for salvation
Yes, for direct members of the Church. The Nicene Creed is the minimum standard for salvation
What else is there, besides "direct" members?People who are validly baptized and material heretics
The Nicene Creed contains the essentials of the Christian faith. Without holding to that, one is not even a Christian (let alone a Catholic)To say the Nicene Creed is the only thing needed to be a Christian and thus denying other things does not render you as a non-Christian is heretical. You don't know fundamental concepts about membership in the Church. Those who deny Catholic teachings are not in the Church.
To say the Nicene Creed is the only thing needed to be a Christian and thus denying other things does not render you as a non-Christian is heretical. You don't know fundamental concepts about membership in the Church. Those who deny Catholic teachings are not in the Church.You are a heretic and a schismatic. Question for you. Do you think non-Sedevacantists are heretics?
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all who think opposed and contrary things [to the Church], and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
You are a heretic and a schismatic. Question for you. Do you think non-Sedevacantists are heretics?Answer my provided quote heretic.
Answer my provided quote heretic.That quote must be understood in the way the Church understands it. Answer my question. Are non-sedes heretics?
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all who think opposed and contrary things [to the Church], and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
People who are validly baptized and material heretics
That quote must be understood in the way the Church understands it. Answer my question. Are non-sedes heretics?I have provided many other quotes showing how the Church understands it. You reject this. You answer mine first and then I will answer yours. What do you think the Church means by this (grabs popcorn)
Just until the age of reason, then they become formal heretics.No. In order to become formal heretics, they must understand and reject the teachings of the Church
I have provided many other quotes showing how the Church understands it. You reject this. You answer mine first and then I will answer yours. What do you think the Church means by this (grabs popcorn)I already answered you.
No. In order to become formal heretics, they must understand and reject the teachings of the Church
Are you saying that the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox are also members of the "One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church" the Nicene Creed tells us we must believe in, by virtue of their Baptism alone?Yes, as long as they are not formal heretics.
I already answered you.You didn't answer the quote I am using. Here is another that condemns the Protestants and "Orthodox" as on the road to hell.
"Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution"
That is my position. Now answer my question. Are non-sedes heretics?
Yes, as long as they are not formal heretics.That is like saying a murderer is good as long as he is not a murderer. Does that make sense? no. You are calling them Protestants therefore they are not Catholic because they obstinately reject Catholic teachings and that is the definition of a heretic.
Banezian, how can you call Orthodox "members of the Church" when they only recognise seven Ecuмenical councils, the "final" one being in 787AD?Sedes reject the Papacy too, and I consider them members of the Church. ( they may believe that there is a Papacy, but by reject the Pope, they are esentialy in the same boat as the Orthodox)The Orthodox do not deny the Immaculate Conception per se. They're view of original sin is totally different from ours The Church has gotten lax on divorce as well, so it's not fair for you to use that against the Orthodox.
.
And they reject the papacy outright.
.
And they reject the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, such as the Immaculate Conception and allow for up to two divorces and a third "marriage" before they say, Basta!
Sedes reject the Papacy too, and I consider them members of the Church. ( they may believe that there is a Papacy, but by reject the Pope, they are esentialy in the same boat as the Orthodox)The Orthodox do not deny the Immaculate Conception per se. They're view of original sin is totally different from ours The Church has gotten lax on divorce as well, so it's not fair for you to use that against the Orthodox.You are saying that those who deny Catholic doctrines are in the Church which is a heresy. I have profited several infallible quotes to make the Catholic position clear. You can only quote fallible heretics to back up your heresies.
You didn't answer the quote I am using. Here is another that condemns the Protestants and "Orthodox" as on the road to hell.No one can fully understand what the Church teaches on this and be saved. I agree. That would make them a formal heretic. Why won't you answer my question?
Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827)
You are saying that those who deny Catholic doctrines are in the Church which is a heresy. I have profited several infallible quotes to make the Catholic position clear. You can only quote fallible heretics to back up your heresies.If they deny it and do not understand it, they are in the Church
No one can fully understand what the Church teaches on this and be saved. I agree. That would make them a formal heretic. Why won't you answer my question?Ok, so you are saying that certain Protestants are not heretics and also not Catholic. Therefore you are asserting that they can deny Catholic dogma and be non-heretical non-Catholics. That makes no sense with what the Church infallibly teaches. The Dimond brothers (the most famous sedevacantist's probably) hold to a heresy that attendees of non-Catholic Church's such as Protestant Church's can be Catholics without knowing it if they believe in the only essential mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation and do not culpably doubt or deny any other dogma of the Catholic Church. Such is of course heretical nonsense but that is what they believe. You, on the other hand, say that such are Protestant unlike the Dimonds who say they are Catholics without knowing it. Both forms are heretical.
Ok, so you are saying that certain Protestants are not heretics and also not Catholic. Therefore you are asserting that they can deny Catholic dogma and be non-heretical non-Catholics. That makes no sense with what the Church infallibly teaches. The Dimond brothers (the most famous sedevacantist's probably) hold to a heresy that attendees of non-Catholic Church's such as Protestant Church's can be Catholics without knowing it if they believe in the only essential mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation and do not culpably doubt or deny any other dogma of the Catholic Church. Such is of course heretical nonsense but that is what they believe. You, on the other hand, say that such are Protestant unlike the Dimonds who say they are Catholics without knowing it. Both forms are heretical.You're a fool. The Dimonds say that ALL non-Catholics will be damned. They hold your position. I would say that these Prots/Orthodox are Catholic insofar as they are members of the Church. But they are material heretics due to their Protestantism. I answered you. Keep your word and ANSWER MY QUESTION. Are all non-sedes heretics?
You must have not read my comment properly. I suggest you reread it. I know the Dimond's say that all non-Catholics are damned, they stretch the definition of a Catholic like I said.Very strange. I've watched a number of their videos, and they've said things to the effect of "If you deny one article of the Faith, you deny the whole Faith" Are you sure your link represent their current view? I will email them tomorrow. Can you go ahead and answer my question?
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/quotes-refute-radical-schismatics/#.WxtIeiApAuU
Dimonds "Notice that this dogmatic creed [Athanasian Creed] declares that the Catholic faith, in terms of its simplest components (i.e. what you would absolutely have to tell every man above reason without exception before baptism and so that he could be saved and have the Catholic faith) is the Trinity and the Incarnation. No other dogma can be rejected, of course, but these are the only two which must be positively known by all above reason. Notice that this dogmatic creed uses the phrase “whoever wishes” or wills to be saved, indicating that it is speaking of those above reason...So if a person has been baptized as an infant, and hits the age of reason in a family where his parents are heretics or schismatics, he can certainly be Catholic, if he has faith in the Trinity and Incarnation and doesn’t obstinately reject any other Catholic teaching."
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Sedes reject the Papacy too, and I consider them members of the Church. ( they may believe that there is a Papacy, but by reject the Pope, they are esentialy in the same boat as the Orthodox)The Orthodox do not deny the Immaculate Conception per se. They're view of original sin is totally different from ours The Church has gotten lax on divorce as well, so it's not fair for you to use that against the Orthodox.You are not making sense. Maybe you need to go study some more and clarify your thinking.
You are not making sense. Maybe you need to go study some more and clarify your thinking.Sedes believe that there is a Papacy, but they are in the same boat as the Orthodox because they reject the Pope and his authority. In many cases they are actually worse than the Orthodox. At least the Orthodox have valid orders. The orders of many sede priests are doubtful at best. Their view of Original Sin is permitted. Eastern Catholics hold the exact same view. The Orthodox are wrong in their view of marriage, but the Church does the same thing these days. At least the Orthodox are honest and call it a divorce instead of calling it an "annulment" and pretending the marriage never happened
.
Sedes do not reject the papacy. You do understand that sedes are sedes because they believe in the papacy. How would they otherwise claim that the Seat is vacant, if they don't believe there is a Seat. So they are not "in the same boat" as the Orthodox. Sedes are Catholic, Orthodox are "out of the boat" altogether.
.
Of course a "view of original sin (which) is totally different from ours" is not permitted to a Catholic and so would put him "outside the boat".
.
The Church has gotten lax on divorce as well, so it's not fair for you to use that against the Orthodox.
.
Now you are really grasping at straws. Can you honestly believe that the Church allows several tries at marriage - to a second and third person but won't allow for a fourth? Marriage is a lifelong commitment in the Catholic Church. Is it being unfair to the Orthodox to make that claim?
You are not making sense. Maybe you need to go study some more and clarify your thinking.Just wondering, have you ever read any Orthodox theologians? Do you know any Orthodox Christians? Many Trad Catholics I know love to condemn everyone who isn't exactly like them, and they almost always tell me they know nothing about the traditions in question. The Russian Orthodox suffered greatly during the Soviet crisis, and produced many martyrs for Christ. The Coptic Orthodox Christians die daily in Egypt. It's easy for sheltered Trads living in America to make these judgments, but I'd ask you to look in the mirror and think whether you could go through what some of these people have endured for Christ
.
Sedes do not reject the papacy. You do understand that sedes are sedes because they believe in the papacy. How would they otherwise claim that the Seat is vacant, if they don't believe there is a Seat. So they are not "in the same boat" as the Orthodox. Sedes are Catholic, Orthodox are "out of the boat" altogether.
.
Of course a "view of original sin (which) is totally different from ours" is not permitted to a Catholic and so would put him "outside the boat".
.
The Church has gotten lax on divorce as well, so it's not fair for you to use that against the Orthodox.
.
Now you are really grasping at straws. Can you honestly believe that the Church allows several tries at marriage - to a second and third person but won't allow for a fourth? Marriage is a lifelong commitment in the Catholic Church. Is it being unfair to the Orthodox to make that claim?
Just wondering, have you ever read any Orthodox theologians? Do you know any Orthodox Christians? Many Trad Catholics I know love to condemn everyone who isn't exactly like them, and they almost always tell me they know nothing about the traditions in question. The Russian Orthodox suffered greatly during the Soviet crisis, and produced many martyrs for Christ. The Coptic Orthodox Christians die daily in Egypt. It's easy for sheltered Trads living in America to make these judgments, but I'd ask you to look in the mirror and think whether you could go through what some of these people have endured for ChristI can see you are getting desperate!
I can see you are getting desperate!Your reading comprehension is quite poor. I didn't say you were any of those things. I made the comment in passing because I've seen it with many, many Trads.
What do you know of me, my history, my background, what I have endured - practically nothing. I am not a sheltered Trad living in America and I certainly don't fit your imaginings.
Your reading comprehension is quite poor. I didn't say you were any of those things. I made the comment in passing because I've seen it with many, many Trads.Your comment was a direct response to my post (reply #72 from memory). In fact you quoted it. So you need to insult me saying my reading comprehension is poor. Au contraire. You can't hold up under the correction here so you need to insult. Not gentlemanly.
Your comment was a direct response to my post (reply #72 from memory). In fact you quoted it. So you need to insult me saying my reading comprehension is poor. Au contraire. You can't hold up under the correction here so you need to insult. Not gentlemanly.I'm not insulting you, I'm just fed up with being called a heretic by heretical Feeneyites and schismatic sedes. I asked what you knew about the Orthodox, and you take it to mean that I'm assuming stuff about you. I never claimed to know a thing about you or your background. I thought this was a forum of the Resistance. It seems more like a haven for sedes and Feeneyites. I have a good feeling Bp. Williamson would be on my side in this discussion ( he may not agree with me on all points, but he's almost certainly closer to me than a good number of radicals here)
Last Tradhican wrote:
I do not know what planet you have been living in, but in this planet, what I wrote is exactly what 99% of all those that defend baptism of desire believe. In all of my years of discussions with people here on CI and elsewhere, the conclusion is that they only hide behind the defense of baptism of desire of the catechumen, when they actual oppose St. Thomas, and teach that people can be saved without any desire to be baptized or Catholic and without belief in the Incarnation (that Jesus Christ is God) and the Holy Trinity. The SSPX, and all the sede groups (Cekada is one of them) teach the same. It is what Abp. Lefebvre learned, believed and taught all of his ordained like Cekada.
If you are the rare individual (I have only met one in my life) that condemns them as false BODers, then I congratulate you. I have nothing against anyone that teaches the innocuous theory of the baptism of desire of the catechumen of St. Thomas. However, like I said, I have only met one person in 15 years that restricted his belief to BOD of the catechumen and that condemned the teaching of salvation by belief in a God that rewards. Concerning this question, in our times, a real Catholic should spend his time fighting those that teach salvation by belief in a God that rewards, rather than attacking what they call the "Feeneyites". In my long experience, and as a matter of fact, I have found that all of those writers who call people Feeneyites, ALL believe that non-Catholics can be saved without any desire to be baptized or Catholic and without belief in the Incarnation (that Jesus Christ is God) and the Holy Trinity.
Banezian has made it obvious in every way that: He has been brainwashed to think against reading dogmas and words as they are written, which goes contrary to his own common sense and thus he has become a young man who does not know what he believes. His hero, "interpreters" of the dogmas on EENS given to him by his professors, are two theologians from the 20th century, one of which (his Avatar picture) taught salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that is, salvation for Mohamedans, Hindus Jєωs, indeed any non-Catholic, non-baptized, even if they have no desire to be baptized, no desire to be Catholic, no belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity.I'm not a Protestant like a good number of folks here. I don't use my own judgment to interpret these things. These things are to be understood in the way the Church understands. Your rhetoric is meaningless
He is now like the cat that fell asleep and dreamed he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up, he did not know if he was a man or a cat.
I feel sorry for him, for even he does not believe what he says.
Agreed, and Protestants/Orthodox who are validly baptized are members of the Church
I'm not a Protestant like a good number of folks here. I don't use my own judgment to interpret these things. These things are to be understood in the way the Church understands. Your rhetoric is meaninglessThe Church understands it in the words that She used to express it at the time it was declared. If there was more to say She would have said it at that time. Fr. Fenton and the modern "theologians" felt that there was more to say and indeed add to it under the guise of a better understanding. It is called Modernism.
So it's Tridentine Catholic ecclesiology that the Church is a visible society. Church also teaches that only the baptized who profess the true faith and are in submission to the Holy Father are members of the Church. Fenton admits that this is the teaching of the Church. So you cannot say that those who do not meet these criteria are MEMBERS of the Church.I look at it like this
So what does Fenton do to posit the salvation of non-members? He claims that people can invisibly belong to the visible Church. When the Church teaches that there can be no salvation outside "the Church of the faithful", he says that the non-faithful can somehow be within the Church of the faithful. So he makes a distinction between being PART OF the Church and being WITHIN the Church (since the EENS formlations use the latter expression).
He creates something that I call "undigested hamburger" ecclesiology. It's like a piece of food that I eat which sits undigested in my stomach but is not actually part of my body.
So, wrong again. Criteria #2 and #3 for membership (as taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and also the Magisterium) are profession of the true faith and submission to the Holy Father.A valid baptism does make one part of the visible Church. A Protestant/Orthodox baby who is baptized becomes a member of the visible Church
At best people can argue, as Fenton does, that non-members can be somehow "within" the Church. I find the argument preposterous, but you can't say that either non-baptized or professed heretics or public schismatics are MEMBERS of the Church. Fenton realizes this and makes no such claim. Membership refers to the visible society of the Church, and in no way do Prots and Orthodox belong to said visible society.
A valid baptism does make one part of the visible Church. A Protestant/Orthodox baby who is baptized becomes a member of the visible Church
Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church ... For many heretics also possess this Sacrament but not the fruits of salvation ... The benefits which flow from Baptism are necessarily fruits which belong to the true Church alone. Children Baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic Church.
Although among heretics and schismatics there is the same Baptism, nevertheless, the remission of sins is not operative among them because of the very rottenness of discord and wickedness of dissension ... Baptism was in them, but it did not profit them outside the Church ... Outside the Church, Baptism works death because of discord.
St. Augustine elaborates on that point:I agree with that, if the heresy in question is formal, not material
I agree with that, if the heresy in question is formal, not material
A valid baptism does make one part of the visible Church. A Protestant/Orthodox baby who is baptized becomes a member of the visible Church
However, when they become material heretics, it is as if they have set up a tent inside the house, and instead of living directly in the house, they live in a tent within the house.
Faith can be lacking even inculpably.
I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
Once they reach the age of reason and become heretics, they are not material heretics because their entire formal motive of faith is absent, and that is what defines formal heresy. You promote the Vatican II line that sincerity = "material heresy". Faith can be lacking even inculpably. You're saying exactly the same things that Vatican II taught, and so you have no business being a Traditional Catholic.
/thread
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3005.htm#article3
Article 3. Whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles?
Both the non-Catholic in heresy and the non-Catholic in error do not have the Catholic rule of faith.
If what Banzenian says is true, then there is absolutely no heretical error found in Vatican II.
Once that person reaches the age of reason, the faith must be explicitly embraced or else the infused virtue dies.
Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will.
Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." Romans 10:17-18 Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way — what must human nature do, or what has it done — for it had either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished — but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." Galatians 2:21 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jєωs received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment — except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]
How many times does this need to be posted?Unfortunately, many times a day, these people are very hard headed.
2.
(. . .)
Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.
I've spent hours searching the writings of the Fathers, to see if an expression like 'good faith' has been applied to those outside of Catholic unity.
I have not found one example.
Bishop George Hay, Fr. Michael Muller, and Orestes Brownson were writing against this nonsense long before Fr. Feeney.
Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical was published in 1832.
Only Catholics can be saved.
Say it again, only Catholics can be saved.
I've spent hours searching the writings of the Fathers, to see if an expression like 'good faith' has been applied to those outside of Catholic unity.
I have not found one example.
No Traditional Catholic can be a strict follower of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas because among other things he denied that Mary is immaculate. Therefore just this alone means he is presumed to be guilty till proven innocent.
No Traditional Catholic can be a strict follower of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas because among other things he denied that Mary is immaculate. Therefore just this alone means he is presumed to be guilty till proven innocent. He also glorified pagan philosophers hundreds of times throughout his summa, thus he was a scholastic. He believed in Aristotle's idea that the created world can be eternal.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2:
“If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place.”
You go too far.
It was not a defined dogma during the time of St. Thomas.
teachings of Thomas Aquinas
You go too far.True.
It was not a defined dogma during the time of St. Thomas.
I notice now, the title of St. has not been applied.I believe in most of what Ibranyi says but not everything. He hold that BOD and BOB for catechumens only is an allowable opinion. He holds as an allowable opinion that the soul is created within the body when the brain develops. He holds as an allowable opinion that devils can possess saintly people. This are things that he teaches that I reject.
Have you fallen to the teachings of Richard Ibranyi?
True.The Church has previously defined that Mary is immaculate.
A person is not considered a heretic for denying a dogma which the infallible Magisterium of the Church has not defined fas such.
That is part of the problem I have with Mr. Drew's Rule of Faith.
PG is back ... after getting banned for denouncing St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Louis de Montfort.I don't know who PG is, he is not me.
True.
A person is not considered a heretic for denying a dogma which the infallible Magisterium of the Church has not defined as such.
That is part of the problem I have with Mr. Drew's Rule of Faith.
The Church has previously defined that Mary is immaculate.
Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Council, 649 A.D., Can. 3- “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” (Denzinger 256)
If people who believed in the dogmas on EENS as they were written were declared heretics it would include a ton of saints. If all the clerical promoters of salvation by belief in a God that rewards were declared heretics, it would not include one single saint.Neither group is heretical.
Last Tradhican wrote: If people who believed in the dogmas on EENS as they were written (that to be saved, one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace) were declared heretics, it would include a ton of saints.You called people Feeneyites and heretics, those are people who believe in the dogmas on EENS as they were written (that to be saved, one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace) and you called them Feeneyites and heretics.
Banizian responded - Neither group is heretical.
You called people who believed in the dogmas on EENS as they were written (that to be saved, one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace) Feeneyites and heretics. Do words have any meaning to you?That is not how they were written. The strictest interpretation one can give of the dogma is given by Fr. Muller. Going any further is heresy. Trent mentions Baptism of desire. St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus all believe that a catechumen who dies before Baptism can be saved. Feeneyism is heretical
That is not how they were written. Feeneyism is hereticalThat is not how they are written? Of course for you, because words have no meaning to you.
That is not how they are written? Of course for you, because words have no meaning to you.All of this stuff is to be taken in context, and interpreted the way the Church interprets it. This is why Feeney was condemned. He did not follow the Church on this question. What do you make of all the saints who say catechumens who die without Baptism are saved?
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)
Dogmatic Decrees? False BODers Will Interpret Them to Our Desires
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Your Heroes. Enjoy.
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 Jєωs 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[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [/color](pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)[/size]
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [/size]nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
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.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
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…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it, their belief in a god that rewards)
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.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
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.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
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…”
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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
Chapter VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is belief in a god that rewards)
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.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)
All of this stuff is to be taken in context, and interpreted the way the Church interprets it. This is why Feeney was condemned. He did not follow the Church on this question. What do you make of all the saints who say catechumens who die without Baptism are saved?What is there to interpret? The false BODers all interpret all the dogmas exactly I showed, it is comical when seen against each CLEAR dogma, is it not? If the "Church" as you call it, interprets it as the false BODers do, then all those dogmas are good for nothing and the "Church" is a joke. It is actually the church of the Vatican II religion which dogmatized the teachings of your hero Lagrange, that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. There is no one saint who taught that, unless you also accept JPII as a saint.
The strictest interpretation one can give of the dogma is given by Fr. Muller. Going any further is heresy.
I do not endorse Vatican 2. My position is the same as that of Fr. Lagrange and Fr. Fenton( neither one of whom did)
That is not how they were written. The strictest interpretation one can give of the dogma is given by Fr. Muller. Going any further is heresy. Trent mentions Baptism of desire. St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus all believe that a catechumen who dies before Baptism can be saved. Feeneyism is hereticalTrent does not mention BOD we've been through this before.
That is Feeneyism and has been condemnedHere we go ...
https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2005/12/13/condemnation-of-fr-leonard-feeney-2/
By the way, if you're a Sedevacantist, you are a schismatic. So you better hope some schismatic can be saved
Here we go ...Another propagandized sentimental liberal..........
The Church has previously defined that Mary is immaculate.
Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Council, 649 A.D., Can. 3- “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” (Denzinger 256)
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.
Another propagandized sentimental liberal..........Indeed.
Not just because the teaching was found, it means that it was a dogma at the time. I am pretty sure every Catholic agrees that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined as such in the year of 1854 in Pope Pius IX's Bull Ineffabilis:I'd go even father and say in fact it's probably heresy itself to call St. Thomas a formal heretic, for formal heretics are damned and the Church infallibly teaches all Saints are in Heaven.
Anyway, even if St. Thomas did err on this point, I really don't think he was a heretic, less a formal heretic.
Even if you do not agree with a saint; or do not "feel" veneration" towards him, accusing a canonized saint of the caliber of St. Thomas of nothing less than heresy is way too much. It really gives a bad name to Traditional Catholics.
I'd go even father and say in fact it's probably heresy itself to call St. Thomas a formal heretic, for formal heretics are damned and the Church infallibly teaches all Saints are in Heaven.farther*
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)
Dogmatic Decrees? False BODers Will Interpret Them According to their own Desires. (or Welcome to Vatican II Religion)
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by the false BODers who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Yet the young man Banizean does not condemn them, in fact he holds Garrigou-Lagrange, one of them, as his hero, using his picture as his avatar. Meanwhile he calls heretics, those who understand these dogmas as they are written.
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 Jєωs 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.” (pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [/size]nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
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.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
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…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it, their belief in a god that rewards)
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.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
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.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
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…”
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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
Chapter VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is belief in a god that rewards)
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.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)
Catechumens are considered members of the Church
The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men UNITED IN THE PROFESSION OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN FAITH AND IN THE COMMUNION OF THE SAME SACRAMENTS, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jєωs, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. THE SECOND PART EXCLUDES THE CATECHUMENS and excommunicated, SINCE THE FORMER ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE SACRAMENTS and the latter are excluded from them…"[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75]
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”
The Eastern Christian (i.e. Patristic) understanding of salvation is significantly different than the understanding that has mythologized and dogmatized by the Latin West after the schism.
Completely false.You cut off my sentence midway and replied to a straw man. Note the qualification at the end of my sentence: in the Christian East. That goes for both pre- and post- schism, whether in communion with the Bishop of Rome or not. Actually, allow me to apologize and modify my original statement - catechumens are considered Christians from the moment they enter the catechumenate. Whether or not this actually means they are members of the church, I can't say as I haven't done enough sifting through polemic and semantic controversies.
St. Robert Bellarmine:
Fathers East and West unanimously held that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and several Eastern Church Fathers explicitly rejected the notion of Baptism of Desire, stating that the Sacramental seal is necessary for the beatific vision.
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”Banezian, pretending for a moment that all things being the same except you were never baptized and tomorrow sometime you died suddenly, do you think it possible that you could be saved via a BOD? I'm just curious.
St. Alphonsus Liguori
You cut off my sentence midway and replied to a straw man. Note the qualification at the end of my sentence: in the Christian East.
catechumens are considered Christians from the moment they enter the catechumenate.
Do you realize that the practically unanimous teaching of the Eastern Fathers/Church is that the souls in Hades can be saved before the Final Judgement? So in a sense, even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't necessarily lead to the same conclusion of Feenyism, i.e. that the unbaptized are condemned to eternal hell. At least not according to the Christian East.
Banezian, pretending for a moment that all things being the same except you were never baptized and tomorrow sometime you died suddenly, do you think it possible that you could be saved via a BOD? I'm just curious.What do you mean by the bolded? If I had the Faith that I do now, but died unbaptized(as a catechumen) I do believe I would be saved. Now, if I had an opportunity for Baptism, and rejected it or delayed, that's another story
What do you mean by the bolded? If I had the Faith that I do now, but died unbaptized(as a catechumen) I do believe I would be saved. Now, if I had an opportunity for Baptism, and rejected it or delayed, that's another storyYes, if you knew what you know now is what I meant.
Yes, if you knew what you know now is what I meant.No, but God is not bound by the Sacraments. ( think of the thief on the cross, we have no evidence that he was baptized) In the Paradiso, Dante points out that God's ways are totally beyond our understanding. It's worth reading over.
The bolded brings up yet another point of discussion. The doctrine of Divine Providence teaches that, just as God arranged for you and I to be baptized, by that very same Providence He arranges for anyone else who desires it to be baptized. Except for our own free will, there is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God achieving His designs for us, one of those designs is that we be sacramentally baptized as per John 3:5.
Do you disagree that all who have ever been baptized, have been baptized by the very same providence with which you and I were baptized? By the very same providence, I mean that God provided us the time to do it and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it, just exactly as He has done for all who have ever been or ever will be baptized.
I would like to understand where is Divine Providence when it comes to a BOD. Being that a BOD happens without any Divine providence or intervention (other than God is the ultimate cause of the recipient's non-reception of the sacrament), and since it is in fact wholly essential to the doctrine of a BOD that there be a total neglect of that very same providence which was absolutely essential for the rest of us, how can we say that one who dies certainly not baptized, saved himself, that is, achieved salvation without God?
but God is not bound by the Sacraments
Whoever invented this little piece? I hear it quite often today and it makes no sense whatsoever.It's funny how people on here think they understand Trent better than St. Alphonsus😀
If God is not "bound" by the Sacraments, then why Christ instituted all seven of them to begin with? It seems like a waste of time if they are not really that necessary for human re-generation.
The same could be said of really anything, even the virtue of "religion". God is no bound by "religion". Whatever was the point of God revealing Himself to us in the Person of Jesus, then?
The Council of Trent defined infallibly which Sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation, though.
It's funny how people on here think they understand Trent better than St. Alphonsus😀
St. Alphonsus never taught that people could be saved without Baptism.Yes he did.
Yes he did.
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori
Well sure. I thought when you said St. Alphonsus did not teach one could be saved without Baptism, you meant water Baptism. So you do hold to a limited form of BOD. Good. What do you think St. Alphonsus means when he mentions "implicit desire"?
That is not being saved without Baptism. It is the water being supplied by the "votum" at last minute for a dying cathechumen.
All other conditions required for salvation, (such as the truths that must be believed in), still apply, just as the obligation of receiving the water Baptism still remains if the catechumen lives and can make it.
Yes he did.
Yes he did.
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Alphonsus completely misconstrues the authority of the "de presbytero non baptizato". This was not a papal teaching to the Universal Church. Otherwise, a very similar letter condemns as heretical his own teaching that people who are saved by BoD do not receive a complete remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. St. Thomas excoriates the same Pope Innocent who in yet another similar letter promotes the heretical position that the Consecration at Mass can be valid even if the priest merely thinks the words of consecration.And what makes you think you know the mind of the Church better than he did? Who the heck are you to judge St. Alphonsus? Just out of curiosity, which sede group are you a part of?
As for the Council of Trent, the "cannot without" phraseology teaches necessary cause but not necessarily sufficient cause for justification.
I cannot stay alive without water. True statement. Does this mean that water alone suffices to keep me alive? That I can live without also having food? Of course not. Same phraseology is used in Trent.
Then he'd be a heretic. Except that he's not. NOBODY in the New Covenant can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. Even if you speculatively posit the existence of BoD, EVEN IN BOD the SACRAMENT remains the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire for it. Otherwise, you'd be a Pelagian who believes that the subjective desire of itself can be salvific ex opere operantis.Sure. No one disagrees with you there. He did teach that people could be saved without water Baptism
Sure. No one disagrees with you there. He did teach that people could be saved without water Baptism
That's still imprecise. He teaches that people can be saved without the in re reception of water Baptism, or without actually receiving the water of Baptism. "water Baptism" is merely synonymous with the Sacrament of Baptism.Sure. I don't bother to be precise because I've already put several hours into this silly discussion. Again, which sede group are you a part of? Dolan/Sanborn and the CMRI hold to BOD(Dolan has said it's a mortal sin to deny it)
In any case, if BoDers would be a little more precise in their language, they could at least avoid giving the impression that they reject Catholic teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation by necessity of means. When you use language like "without" or that people can be saved by a "substitute" for the Sacrament, that is scandalous and undermines Catholic dogma. Post-Tridentine theologians were careful to state not that people can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament but that they received the Sacrament in voto; they thought of it as a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.
If you formulated your belief in BoD this way, I would not bother arguing with you but would consider it little more than a polite disagreement regarding a matter of speculative theology.
No, but God is not bound by the Sacraments. ( think of the thief on the cross, we have no evidence that he was baptized) In the Paradiso, Dante points out that God's ways are totally beyond our understanding. It's worth reading over.Really? Try using a chocolate chip cookie for transubstantiation. Silly statement that God is not bound by His sacraments.
Sure. I don't bother to be precise because I've already put several hours into this silly discussion. Again, which sede group are you a part of? Dolan/Sanborn and the CMRI hold to BOD(Dolan has said it's a mortal sin to deny it)The gentleman to whom you are talking to has put 25 years into this discussion and is very patiently attempting to teach you to be precise, lest you become a heretic like the Pelagians. Precision is everything when you are attempting to skirt all those dogmas. You need to grow up.
But we are not Novus Ordo or resistance either.Correction: But we are not Novus Ordo or
No, but God is not bound by the Sacraments. ( think of the thief on the cross, we have no evidence that he was baptized) In the Paradiso, Dante points out that God's ways are totally beyond our understanding. It's worth reading over.Christ did not make the reception of the sacrament necessary for salvation until after the crucifixion, so your point about the good thief is irrelevant.
I almost regret joining Cathinfo. Many dull folks with Protestant mindsets who think they know better than the ChurchYou mean to say "YOUR interpretation" of what the Church teaches.
The SSPX DOES NOT have an official position on this. I recently spoke to a SSPX seminary professor/priest who hold the same view as I.Sorry, but your statement is false Banezian.
Sure. I don't bother to be precise because I've already put several hours into this silly discussion.
I almost regret joining Cathinfo. Many dull folks with Protestant mindsets who think they know better than the ChurchYou need, Father, to catch up. The finger of God is with Fr. Feeney. If you know your Church history, you have noticed how God raises up souls, often saints, to fix or judge on things incorrect or doctrines being softened or ignored. Such is the fight against the necessity of the Church membership for salvation, and the necessity of Baptism of Water. Ecuмenism was a huge and well prepared-for element at the Vatican II Council. Fr. Feeney was most inconvenient to these plans. His superiors said that he was the best theologian they had in America by far. This was not a lightweight priest. And now, in retrospect, we see that his concerns were well founded. If you pray for truth, the Holy Ghost will show you this as well. His cause was railroaded, much the same as Arch. L., who said he has never had a fair hearing. Neither did Fr. Feeney. When the powers that be don't want your case, when they are against God and you, they will stonewall you, and call you names. But the heroes hold their position.
Really? Try using a chocolate chip cookie for transubstantiation. Silly statement that God is not bound by His sacraments.
Sure. I don't bother to be precise because I've already put several hours into this silly discussion. Again, which sede group are you a part of? Dolan/Sanborn and the CMRI hold to BOD(Dolan has said it's a mortal sin to deny it)
God is indeed not bound by His Sacraments ... and yet God has seen fit to bind US. But, yes, it's a silly statement but it RINGS true, and so they use it (even though it doesn't apply).We may be in agreement without realizing it. So I'll try to clarify my statement as best I can. I say that He is bound to His sacraments because he is bound to His word. This is based on the attribute of His veracity; He cannot contradict Himself.
I say that He is bound to His sacraments because he is bound to His word.
He is obviously not bound and could have given salvation in some other way, but He willed to do it this way.and He does not need another way.