How does he have a brilliant brain if he thinks the h0Ɩ0h0αx happened? A monkey could figure it out. Unless he does know it didn't happen, in which case he would be corrupt and a possible crypto.Show me your 2:1 from Oxbridge or academic equivalent.
"Anti EU, anti illegal immigrant." Anti-Jєωιѕн? As the religion to which he claims adherence teaches? Nope.
He apologized in 2013 for giving a speech at a Traditional Britain Group meeting (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-s-after-dinner-speech-to-group-calling-on-doreen-lawrence-to-go-home-8752995.html), not knowing that one of their positions is the repatriation of non-whites. You know he wouldn't have mistakenly attended an event by a group preaching Jєωιѕн expulsion.
I don't believe it is a "hoax" myself. Neither do >90% of people who have read the evidence.Genocide caused by deliberately tainted and bio-engineered mandated vaccines, abortion, and radicalized Muslim honor-killings, beheadings, and crucifixions are still taking place today. From what I have read in the British underground news, Muslims continue to kill and rape daily in the UK.
A person who has the word "Jew" in nearly every one of his posts would hardly appear to be an objective judge of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. That is more than a hobby horse it is an obsession.
Was it six million killed? Who knows, but it was deliberate and there were a lot of Jews (and others) deliberately murdered in the camps.
Frankly, it is not something I lose any sleep over. Happened 24 years before I was born and it has happened to many tribes in history. I am sure it will happen again before 100 years.
But the Jews fabricated this notion of extermination camps, gas chambers, and 6 million Jews killed for later use as a political weapon to drive their agenda (to get their homeland). And it worked. And they have used this as a weapon ever since, something with which to bludgeon their opponents into silence when they have no refutation to make of their points. If you disagree with the evildoings of any Jews, then it's because you support Hitler and the h0Ɩ0cαųst.Exactly. No matter what actually happened in history, there is no question that it is a tool of political and social manipulation now. It is about shutting down criticism of Jews/ Israel.
It is to that extent that the h0Ɩ0cαųst is a fraud and a hoax.
And of you!Interesting. You have a low opinion of someone you don’t even know personally?
Although I had already a pretty low opinion of you.
Mogg is married to an Anglican.( they were married at Canterbury Cathedral) I don’t see anything wrong with it myself, but that might make you folks think less of him.If you read the article you will find that he was married with a novus ordo mass in latin so it seems he might be a smells and bells man. He likes the Tridentine, but he's happy enough with the other.
If you read the article you will find that he was married with a novus ordo mass in latin so it seems he might be a smells and bells man. He likes the Tridentine, but he's happy enough with the other.So it seems you made the statement because I said I was fine with Mogg marrying an Anglican. You could have asked me to explain what I meant before making such a statement
.
IT is certainly inadvisable for a Catholic to marry an anglican, the Church frowns on Catholics marrying heretics, and as for a Catholic marrying in Canterbury cathedral well that would be a disgrace (if it were true).
.
Banezian, you classify yourself as traditional, but like many traditionalists you do not know the Catholic Faith well.
.
My impressions have been gained in the same way I gain impressions of any other posters, i.e. by your posts.
.
Though I must say I have been overly harsh and incharitable and for this I apologise.
Genocide caused by deliberately tainted and bio-engineered mandated vaccines, abortion, and radicalized Muslim honor-killings, beheadings, and crucifixions are still taking place today. From what I have read in the British underground news, Muslims continue to kill and rape daily in the UK.deliberately tainted and bio-engineered mandated vaccines
What does it mean to be a "traditional Christian" vs. a "traditional Catholic"? There's no such thing as a traditional Christian except for a Traditional Catholic.When I speak of a “traditional Christian” I mean a woman who is culturally traditional and believes what all Christians have believed throughou the ages. “Conservative” Novus Ordo women worship JPII. They’ll tell you that one doesn’t need to believe in Christ to be saved and that we worship the same God as Jews ( thry think the Old Covenant is still valid) Thry call themselves “JPII Feminists” They don’t dress or act like women. 100 years ago, these women would not have been accepted in any Christian circles( let alone Catholic) No decent/pious Orthodox or Anglican/Lutheran(and I mean the most traditional among them ) is like that. They do not worship the Jews nor will they say one can be saved without Christ. Certainly even traditional Protestants are in grave error on several points, but I’m closer to traditional Orth9dox than I am to any Novus Ordo. Outside of papal primacy, Traditional Orthodox don’t disagree with us on much anything substantial ( when one really gets into the technical aspects of theological questions)
If you can't find a Traditional Catholic spouse, then at least go with a conservative Novus Ordo type who still has the faith and believes the same core things as what the Church teaches on faith and morals. There's much less a divide there. At least you both profess the Catholic faith ... vs. marrying a heretic.
Not that this man is a Traditional Catholic. Surely he could have found a conservative Novus Ordo wife. But she is worth lots of money and seems to have ties with nobility.
Mogg is married to an Anglican.( they were married at Canterbury Cathedral) I don’t see anything wrong with it myself, but that might make you folks think less of him.Married to an anglican in Canterbury Cathedral means married outside the Church. Whether or not what you claim above is true, you are giving a lot away about yourself which would point in the direction of ignorance of the mind of the Church.
Married to an anglican in Canterbury Cathedral means married outside the Church. Whether or not what you claim above is true, you are giving a lot away about yourself which would point in the direction of ignorance of the mind of the Church.Did you bother to read my last post? I said I DO NOT approve of him marrying in Canterbury Cathedral. That was wrong. As I have also said, mixed marriages are not ideal but they must be accepted in the modern world. Please, read what I write before attacking me
That you don't see anything wrong with that (marrying a heretic in the Anglican church) shows you have a poor knowledge of the Catholic Faith.
When I speak of a “traditional Christian” I mean a woman who is culturally traditional and believes what all Christians have believed throughou the ages. “Conservative” Novus Ordo women worship JPII. They’ll tell you that one doesn’t need to believe in Christ to be saved and that we worship the same God as Jews ( thry think the Old Covenant is still valid) Thry call themselves “JPII Feminists” They don’t dress or act like women. 100 years ago, these women would not have been accepted in any Christian circles( let alone Catholic) No decent/pious Orthodox or Anglican/Lutheran(and I mean the most traditional among them ) is like that. They do not worship the Jews nor will they say one can be saved without Christ. Certainly even traditional Protestants are in grave error on several points, but I’m closer to traditional Orth9dox than I am to any Novus Ordo. Outside of papal primacy, Traditional Orthodox don’t disagree with us on much anything substantial ( when one really gets into the technical aspects of theological questions)Here is your last post. Nothing there about said non-approval.
Here is your last post. Nothing there about said non-approval.I meant my post on Mogg and Canterbury Cathedral. If you bother to look, I say
.
Also you need to brush up on "Orthodoxy".
.
Do you cosider the Immaculate Conception something substantial?
How about Purgatory? Original sin? The Filioque? The indissolubility of marriage? The Church councils?
I meant my post on Mogg and Canterbury Cathedral. If you bother to look, I say
“I most certainly do not approve of Mogg getting married at Canterbury Cathedral or with an N. O Mass. ”
Also your latest post shows you know very little about Orthodoxy. Typical claims made about Orthodoxy by Trads who don’t actualy know any Orthodox. Here are some corrections
1. The Orthodox do not deny the Immaculate Conception. They view Mary as “All Pure” They just say it isn’t needed, because their understanding of Original Sin is not Augustinian. No serious Orthodox would ever say that Mary was a sinner in any way.
2. The Orthodox do not deny Purgatory. They just have serious issues with the Medieval understanding of Purgatory( as do I) The Orthodox are not like Protestants. They do believe that there is a state after death and before Heaven for some, but they refuse to speculate about it. Trent says that we can not know the nature of Purgatory, so no disagreement there.
3. As far as Original Sin is concerned, the Orthodox follow the Eastern Fathers instead of Augustine. They will say that we are left with the effects of Original Sin after the fall, but they dislike speaking of “guilt” when it comes to Original Sin. Even so, some Orthodox theologians will say that we are guilty of Adam’s sin only by analogy, and that’s essentially what the Church teaches( we certainly aren’t personally guilty of Adam’s own sin) the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Original Sin goes into the technical aspects of the Church’s teaching.
4. The Filioque is a very, very complex topic to get into. It’s not even worth discussing if you haven’t had at least some formal study of theology. The problem the Orthodox seem to have is not so much with the teaching itself, but with the fact that it was added to the Creed. Say what you will, but the Church has more or less conceded this by allowing Eastern Catholics not to say the Filioque in the Creed.
5. Traditionalist Orthodox view marriage more or less the same way as Catholics. A “divorce” for them would be the equivalent of an anullment in the Catholic Church. Traditional Orthodox bishops would only allow them in extreme situations.
Remember, I specifically said Traditional Orthodox. They have their liberals, but so does the Church. If you want an educated Catholic prospective on Orthodoxy, I’d recommend the work of Fr. Aidan Nichols O. P
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html)
I meant my post on Mogg and Canterbury Cathedral. If you bother to look, I sayThat's all well and good, but isn't it Church teaching that the Orthodox and all other schismatics are damned?
“I most certainly do not approve of Mogg getting married at Canterbury Cathedral or with an N. O Mass. ”
Also your latest post shows you know very little about Orthodoxy. Typical claims made about Orthodoxy by Trads who don’t actualy know any Orthodox. Here are some corrections
1. The Orthodox do not deny the Immaculate Conception. They view Mary as “All Pure” They just say it isn’t needed, because their understanding of Original Sin is not Augustinian. No serious Orthodox would ever say that Mary was a sinner in any way.
2. The Orthodox do not deny Purgatory. They just have serious issues with the Medieval understanding of Purgatory( as do I) The Orthodox are not like Protestants. They do believe that there is a state after death and before Heaven for some, but they refuse to speculate about it. Trent says that we can not know the nature of Purgatory, so no disagreement there.
3. As far as Original Sin is concerned, the Orthodox follow the Eastern Fathers instead of Augustine. They will say that we are left with the effects of Original Sin after the fall, but they dislike speaking of “guilt” when it comes to Original Sin. Even so, some Orthodox theologians will say that we are guilty of Adam’s sin only by analogy, and that’s essentially what the Church teaches( we certainly aren’t personally guilty of Adam’s own sin) the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Original Sin goes into the technical aspects of the Church’s teaching.
4. The Filioque is a very, very complex topic to get into. It’s not even worth discussing if you haven’t had at least some formal study of theology. The problem the Orthodox seem to have is not so much with the teaching itself, but with the fact that it was added to the Creed. Say what you will, but the Church has more or less conceded this by allowing Eastern Catholics not to say the Filioque in the Creed.
5. Traditionalist Orthodox view marriage more or less the same way as Catholics. A “divorce” for them would be the equivalent of an anullment in the Catholic Church. Traditional Orthodox bishops would only allow them in extreme situations.
Remember, I specifically said Traditional Orthodox. They have their liberals, but so does the Church. If you want an educated Catholic prospective on Orthodoxy, I’d recommend the work of Fr. Aidan Nichols O. P
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html)
That's all well and good, but isn't it Church teaching that the Orthodox and all other schismatics are damned?No. There are various understandings on EENS. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange says
The more you write the more you prove that you are not Catholic. For good reason your reputation vote score is strongly negative.No friend, my reputation is low because I’m not a shallow nut like many on here.
No friend, my reputation is low because I’m not a shallow nut like many on here.I think your reputation is low because you put on airs and act better than other people as you just did here and because you post on BOD threads. Everyone who posts on BOD threads either pro or contra gets a lot of downvotes.
I think your reputation is low because you put on airs and act better than other people as you just did here and because you post on BOD threads.So he can just come out and call me a non-Catholic? What do you expect me to do? If people on here politely disagreed instead of calling each other heret8cs and non-Catholics, this would be a better place
No. There are various understandings on EENS. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange saysFr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a fairly recent Priest in the grand scheme of things, seeing as the Church is 2,000 years old. To pass the "is it innovation?" test, we should see examples of the Church teaching that centuries ago. I've never heard of any theologian before the 1800s saying a Protesant or schismatic could be saved. What's also suspect is that he says "the great number is saved". Now, while I respect him, this is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught, which is that not even the great number(meaning the majority) of Catholics are saved. So it seems like innovation to me.
“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.”
So he can just come out and call me a non-Catholic? What do you expect me to do? If people on here politely disagreed instead of calling each other heret8cs and non-Catholics, this would be a better placeI said what I said about you because I thought it to be true of you based on my experience with you on the forum from reading many of your posts and arguments. What I thought you did was basically condemn the forum in general for giving you more downvotes than upvotes and call those without a bad reputation "shallow nut"s though I don't know if you meant it that way. But what do I expect you to do? Wonder if perhaps the reason you get so many down-votes is because you are wrong about some things. I know I say wrong things all the time, perhaps GLG was not right about everything and you are mistaken in following him. Go over to Suscipe Domine and start arguments with Quaremerepulisti over GLG, though he has a very different perspective than those on Cathinfo. It would certainly be interesting. I would read those arguments glady, as I think you are relatively learned and I respect you, even though I do not agree with you about some things, and he is a sharp tack, though I am sure many on Cathinfo would not consider QMR to be a Catholic so you are in the same boat as him. But as for that quote of GLG, the same quote has been posted on Cathinfo multiple times as proof that GLG was a liberal and false conservative, and it does trouble me a bit, as I always thought that the number of those saved was small and that a protestant or orthodox would have to renounce their false religion to be saved and die as Catholics.
While the man seems to be very strong on Catholic morals, and he would be far preferable to any other politician out there, I do suspect that his inclinations toward the Tridentine Mass may be simply a function of his overall foppish tendencies ... so, as someone else said, a smells and bells man.
Smell-and-bells is right.He’s such a Jew-tool that he allowed his daughter to marry a Jew and convert to Judaism. How much more of a Jewtool can one be?
Rees-Mogg wouldn't end abortion were he to become PM. He's on record stating that abortion law will not change. He's the type typical in right-wing politics who conveniently separate what they claim are their personal beliefs from public policy when it comes to anything which would jeopardize the social engineering of Jews.
This isn't to say people shouldn't vote for Jew-chosen frauds. When it's the only game in town then you can vote for the Jew-chosen fraud who is more to your liking. I did vote for Trump, after all, knowing well before I did so that he's as much a tool of the Jews (if not a crypto) as the next guy.
He had political aspirations for a while -- he ran in 2000 with the Reform Party (Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot's party).Umm?! The guy's a Pom!
Umm?! The guy's a Pom!No, I'm talking about Trump whose daughter married a Jew, per Banezian's comment. And Trump did run for president in 2000 under a very small party.
I said what I said about you because I thought it to be true of you based on my experience with you on the forum from reading many of your posts and arguments. What I thought you did was basically condemn the forum in general for giving you more downvotes than upvotes and call those without a bad reputation "shallow nut"s though I don't know if you meant it that way. But what do I expect you to do? Wonder if perhaps the reason you get so many down-votes is because you are wrong about some things. I know I say wrong things all the time, perhaps GLG was not right about everything and you are mistaken in following him. Go over to Suscipe Domine and start arguments with Quaremerepulisti over GLG, though he has a very different perspective than those on Cathinfo. It would certainly be interesting. I would read those arguments glady, as I think you are relatively learned and I respect you, even though I do not agree with you about some things, and he is a sharp tack, though I am sure many on Cathinfo would not consider QMR to be a Catholic so you are in the same boat as him. But as for that quote of GLG, the same quote has been posted on Cathinfo multiple times as proof that GLG was a liberal and false conservative, and it does trouble me a bit, as I always thought that the number of those saved was small and that a protestant or orthodox would have to renounce their false religion to be saved and die as Catholics.I do think this forum would be a better place if we stopped condemning one another over these disagreements. Many on here ( including myself) are too quick to say others don’t have the Faith. To me, this is the danger of online forums. We interact with one another in an impersonal way, so condemning each other is easy. As I meet more people personally( whether they be Resistance or even Sedevacantists] i regret the way I and others have acted on these forums. I know Fr. Ortiz and am on very good terms with him? Even someone like Bp. Donald Sanborn ought to be commended for his excellent cultural commentary. Outside of the question of the Papacy, I doubt I disagree with him on anything. It’s one thing to disagree with one another or to say that someone is in error. It’s quite another thing to say someone doesn’t have the Faith
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a fairly recent Priest in the grand scheme of things, seeing as the Church is 2,000 years old. To pass the "is it innovation?" test, we should see examples of the Church teaching that centuries ago. I've never heard of any theologian before the 1800s saying a Protesant or schismatic could be saved. What's also suspect is that he says "the great number is saved". Now, while I respect him, this is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught, which is that not even the great number(meaning the majority) of Catholics are saved. So it seems like innovation to me.That is correct, that is why I said Banezian is not a Catholic. Banezian has his beliefs and he picked Garrigou-Lagrange because he reflects what Banezian believed in the first place, what 99% of Novus ordo Catholics believe today, that anyone who is good, will be saved. He can't quote John Paul II or Vatican II which both teach the same thing as G-L, because he'd be laughed off CI. He can't quote any saint teaching what he believes, so he grabs ahold of Garrigou-Lagrange, a man who was a one eyed theologian in a time of blind theologians.
That is correct, that is why I said Banezian is not a Catholic. Banezian has his beliefs and he picked Garrigou-Lagrange because he reflects what Banezian believed in the first place, what 99% of Novus ordo Catholics believe today, that anyone who is good, will be saved. He can't quote John Paul II or Vatican II which both teach the same thing as G-L, because he'd be laughed off CI. He can't quote any saint teaching what he believes, so he grabs ahold of Garrigou-Lagrange, a man who was a one eyed theologian in a time of blind theologians.You know nothing about how Catholic theology works. There are various schools of thought when it comes to EENS( Fenton, Garrigou, Muller, etc) Who are you to call people non-Catholics when the Church has said no such thing? Your attitude is Protestant, not Catholic. There are people on here who I disagree with but respect ( like Ladislaus) I cant say the same about you. Also, I don’t believe that “Anyone who is good” is saved. I’m not responsible for your inability to make distinctions
There are various schools of thought when it comes to EENS ( Fenton, Garrigou, Muller, etc)Fenton - a theologian of the 1950's-1960's
Fenton - a theologian of the 1950's-1960'sThere can be development of doctrine. Read Newman. You have zero basis for calling me a non-Catholic
Garrigou - Lagrange - a theologian of the 1940's -1960's
Muller - (Muller did not teach what Banezian expressed on this thread ) he wrote in the 1890's
The three above are not "schools of thought" of EENS.
- The dogmatic decrees as they are written do not teach what Banezian expressed
- No Saint teaches what Banezian expressed.
There can be development of doctrine. Read Newman. You have zero basis for calling me a non-CatholicNewman, from the late 1800's, an Anglican priest and later a Catholic priest.
You have zero basis for calling me a non-Catholic
Banezian wrote: - I would absolutely marry a Traditional Orthodox or a Traditional Protestant(Anglican/Lutheran) before I thought about marrying an N. O Catholic. - I’m closer to traditional Orth9dox than I am to any Novus Ordo.
Novus Ordo's are Catholic, while Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. You are not Catholic and your every word further confirms it. Keep writing, you may just convince yourself of what I am pointing out to you.
There are various schools of thought when it comes to EENS( Fenton, Garrigou, Muller, etc) Who are you to call people non-Catholics when the Church has said no such thing?
There's only one answer. Banezian is a smells-and-bells guy. Because the Orthodox or traddy Anglican types have better smells and bells than the Novus Ordo, Banezian considers them closer to Catholicism. Unbelievable. Someone who formally holds the Catholic faith but has a liking for clown Masses is much closer to Catholicism than a formal heretic/schismatic.St. Peter Julian Eymard – Bad Catholic vs Good Protestant
St. Peter Julian Eymard – Bad Catholic vs Good Protestant
People often say, “It is better to be a good Protestant than a bad Catholic.” That is not true! That would mean that one could be saved without the true faith. No. A bad Catholic remains a child of the family, although a prodigal; and however great a sinner he may be, he still has a right to mercy. Through his faith, a bad Catholic is nearer to God than a Protestant, for he is a member of the household, whereas the heretic is not. And how hard it is to make him become one!
St. Peter Julian Eymard
You claim I don’t know the Catholic Faith. This is probably because of my position on BOD. I follow Garrigou-Lagrange on this point, and I’ll take his position over the views of Cathinfo armchair theologians any day
Novus Ordo's are Catholic, while Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. You are not Catholic and your every word further confirms it. Keep writing, you may just convince yourself of what I am pointing out to you.I’ll take a good Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic over a JPII worshipping Novus Ordo any day.
This isn't even about BoD, this is about the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.Of course the Faith is necessary for salvation. Anyone who is saved is saved a Catholic.
Yes, this further confirms that Banezian isn't even Catholic. He also clearly rejects EENS. How can you be closer to an explicit professed schismatic and/or heretic than to a conservative Novus Ordo type who professes the faith but happens to have adhered materially to some error (yes, I know that many individuals within the Novus Ordo are heretics, but I wasn't referring to these in my post)?It’s not a matter of smells and bells. Traditional Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic theology is closer to Traditional Catholic theology than what the Novus Ordo teaches. That’s a fact
There's only one answer. Banezian is a smells-and-bells guy. Because the Orthodox or traddy Anglican types have better smells and bells than the Novus Ordo, Banezian considers them closer to Catholicism. Unbelievable. Someone who formally holds the Catholic faith but has a liking for clown Masses is much closer to Catholicism than a formal heretic/schismatic.
Schools of thought which did not come into existence until the first Jesuit liberals started playing with the notion of EENS around the year 1600. And the Church's failure to condemn these types does not condone their heresies. God allowed the Church not to condemn these errors, because without them the great testing of faith that we see in progress today could never have happened. God willed that the faith be put to the test. And you are failing badly, Banezian.ABL agreed with me. If I’m a heretic, so was he.
Are you a Traditional Catholic at all? If so, you're in contradiction because everything in Vatican II derives from this Garrigou-articulated distortion of EENS.
I guess that Arianism wasn't heresy until it was formally condemned by the Church after some time. Until the Church formally and officially condemned it, it too was just a harmless "school of thought".
Quoting Abp. Lefebvre is interesting, because most people on this site are willing to call anyone a non-Catholic heretic for saying things like that EXCEPT him. When you point out the hypocrisy they just accuse you of being some divide-and-conquer troll.Indeed
ABL agreed with me. If I’m a heretic, so was he.I was one of the first contributors to CI that introduced those ABL quotes that the writer posted. He again makes the same mistake by saying that he "follows" ABL that he did when he said he is just "following" Garrigou-Lagrange, he is just choosing them because they reflect what he already believed, what 99% of Novus Ordo's believe and Vatican II and JPII taught, along with all the Vatican II clergy. That is why Vatican II came to be, to teach what he believes, what was demonstrated at the World Day of Peace at Assisi, that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. I'll repeat what I said, the writer quotes 20th century personages because there are no saints that ever taught what he believes. My belief in EENS is based on dogmas as they are written, and the early church Fathers and many many saints. The writers belief is based on 20th century personages, what he was taught by the Vatican II religion.
Quoting Abp. Lefebvre is interesting, because most people on this site are willing to call anyone a non-Catholic heretic for saying things like that EXCEPT him. When you point out the hypocrisy they just accuse you of being some divide-and-conquer troll.
Nope. I've stated clearly that the particular quotes from +Lefebvre are indeed objectively heretical. He wrongly believes that he's upholding "no salvation outside the Church" by reformulating it as "no salvation except by means of the Church." But it's clear that +Lefebvre never gave the question much thought and was merely parroting back something he was taught in seminary.Well Bp. Williamson called Vladimir Putin ( a Russian Orthodox Christian) a “follower of Christ” If a Resistance bishop says that, I think I’m safe on Cathinfo. This is a Resistance forum after all.
Banezian on the other hand manifested his heresy by declaring that formal schismatics and heretics are closer to Catholicism than conservative Novus Ordites who profess the Catholic faith. And he is pertinacious in this heresy after having been called out and corrected about it.
Well Bp. Williamson called Vladimir Putin ( a Russian Orthodox Christian) a “follower of Christ” If a Resistance bishop says that, I think I’m safe on Cathinfo. This is a Resistance forum after all.Once again you turn to 20th century personages that agree with what you believe. Find yourself a Father of the Church, a Doctor, a saint, a dogma. Personages like Garrigou-Lagrange, Abp L, Bp. Williamson are just persons that can make mistakes. You don't see anyone here saying that they believe in the strict EENS because of Fr. Feeney, do you? Only a lazy person who only scratches the surface would talk that way, or a person just seeking personages that agree with what they believe.
Once again you turn to 20th century personages for your source of knowledge about the faith.I wasn’t making an argument with the last post. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but you have no basis for calling me a non -Catholic. Here’s what Pius IX says on EENS
Find yourself a saint a Father of the Church, a doctor, saint, a dogma. Personages like Garrigou-Lagrange, Abp L, Bp. Williamson are just persons that can make mistakes. You don't see anyone here saying that they believe in EENS because of Fr. Feeney, do you? Only a person who scratches the surface would thing that way, or a person just seeking personages that agree with what they believe.
I wasn’t making an argument with the last post. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but you have no basis for calling me a non -Catholic. Here’s what Pius IX says on EENSSmorgasbord religion. The writer thinks he invented sliced bread.
“We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace”
Here’s what Tanquerey says
“The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.”
That’s all Garrigou, ABL, etc are saying. No one is saying that one can be saved outside of or withou the Church. Fathers, Doctors, and saints are not the only sources Catholics look to for theology. Again, whether you disagree with me is of little importance. I follow well-regarded pre-Vatican II theologians, so you have no right to call me a non-Catholic.
When I say Traditional Orthodox or Anglo-Catholics are closer to us than “conservative” Novus Ordos, I’m speaking about theology, not communion. Again, I’m not responsible for your inability to make distinctions.
Smorgasbord religion. The writer thinks he invented sliced bread.No friend, it’s just that you’re incapable of making distinctions
I wasn’t making an argument with the last post. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but you have no basis for calling me a non -Catholic. Here’s what Pius IX says on EENS
(. . .)
can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.
What do you think is meant by divine light and grace. No one who professes a false religion can be saved.Wrong. If they profess it in ignorance they can be saved( although they would be saved as Catholics, not by their religion)
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pius-ix-and-invincible-ignorance/
Wrong. If they profess it in ignorance they can be saved( although they would be saved as Catholics, not by their religion)
No Salvation Outside the Church.
Baptism of desire does not make one a member of the body of the Church nor capable of receiving the other sacraments, until sacramental Baptism has been administered. It unites one with the soul of the Church. It effects the internal communion with the Church, consisting in the desire (albeit implicit) of being externally united with it, which is an indispensable means of salvation. One must bear in mind the different kinds of union with the Church, in order to understand the truth, that outside of the Church there is no salvation. Those who would be saved must have the will to do all that God has ordained for salvation consequently the desire of being a member of His true Church. If one who professes a false religion is saved, he is saved not through his false religion, but only inasmuch as he is (however unconsciously) a member of the true Church. Christians who through no fault of their own, are separated by heresy or schism from the body of the Church, may be in the soul of the Church. The will to do all that God has ordained for salvation is compatible with external but unconscious separation from the Church; therefore one who is in error through invincible ignorance (bonafide) is capable of perfect contrition. The case is different with him who is knowingly in error (bone fide) so long as he persists in thus acting against his conscience.
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecuмenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.
To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church "recognizes that in many ways she is linked" 14 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html#%24E) with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit.
Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995) | John Paul IINot what I’m saying. I’m done arguing this. We’ve done this many times before.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html
Now one understand subsists in.
Not what I’m saying. I’m done arguing this. We’ve done this many times before.That is because the writer's belief is only what he believes, it is all made up from different teachings, like Frankenstein was put together from different human beings. It is what every Protestant does, their beliefs being the "doctrine" of that one person. All it is, is rationalizing what they already believe. By the same method one can rationalize becoming an Eastern Orthodox today as a reaction to Vatican II, getting an annulment from an SSPX "invalid schismatic wedding", living a "godly" monogamous ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage...…...
If they profess it in ignorance they can be savedMajor - All men have an obligation to serve God, which is why they were created and the only way they can get to heaven.
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church
If there are individuals in the state of grace, professing a religion other than the Catholic religion, necessarily the Church of Christ extends beyond the Catholic Church.No one outside the Church can be in the state of grace. It's impossible. If they've never been baptized, then they have Original Sin on their souls (at least...most catholics have trouble with mortal sin, how can someone who doesn't have the help of mass/sacraments avoid mortal sins? Extremely unlikely)
There can be development of doctrine.No, doctrine doesn't change. There can only be developments in the UNDERSTANDING of doctrine, since doctrine is essentially a Divine Truth, which is never fully understood by humans, since it's a mystery; therefore the Church, through Her saints/doctors can add explanations, as long as the doctrine remains essentially the same. Doctrine must be understood the same today as yesterday and tomorrow (since all Doctrines of the Church are part of Tradition, at least implicitly, and have been held since Apostolic times).
Trad123, stop posting V2 garbage or else i'll start a petition to get you banned. If you want to read V2 heresies, go someplace else.I thought he was just bringing out how the beliefs of Banezian are expressed in Vatican II. Was I wrong? Does he actually believe what Vatican II teaches? You must know from other postings of his , no?
I might have misread.Pax, You are an excellent model for Banezian in showing him how simple and refreshing is to admit you are wrong. S'pose this comes with maturity!
Trad123, I’m sorry for the confusion. Please accept my apology.