Author Topic: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved? (Read 5870 times)

Banezian · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:09:08 AM »

Quote from: poche on November 19, 2019, 11:44:19 PM

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

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

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

Yes, this is my position in a nutshell

ascanio1 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2019, 03:02:43 AM »

Quote from: poche on November 19, 2019, 11:44:19 PM

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

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

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

Thank you for posting these quotes. Was the Baltimore catechism created with infallibility privileges?

These teachings directly conflict with those posted by LastTradhican. Either those councils' teachings are in error of the Baltimore catechism is in error.

ascanio1 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2019, 03:10:54 AM »

Quote from: Motorede on November 19, 2019, 06:48:38 PM

And to add more detail: The only issue at hand then was EENS. Father Feeney had not yet spoken of BOD because the modernists had not spoken of it. When Father and the Center students were punished it was not over the BOD issue; that was to come into the public realm later on and it was the modernists who used it first in order to compromise the Dogma of Faith which Father Feeney was fighting for.

1. What is BOD? I googled but the best answer I found was a Hungarian priest.
2. Therefore Fr Feeney was excommunicated for disobeying the summons rather than for doctrinal heresy or error.

Please correct me. To me it seems that Fr Feeney's interpretation is consistent with Last Tradhican's references to infallible teachings of the cited councils.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2019, 04:08:48 AM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 20, 2019, 03:10:54 AM

1. What is BOD? I googled but the best answer I found was a Hungarian priest. (BOD = baptism of desire)
2. Therefore Fr Feeney was excommunicated for disobeying the summons rather than for doctrinal heresy or error. (Correct)

Please correct me. To me it seems that Fr Feeney's interpretation is consistent with Last Tradhican's references to infallible teachings of the cited councils. (that is because he read dogmas as they are written. Dogma is the final word from the Holy Ghost. If dogma needed interpretation then it is useless. )

Explaining baptism of desire (BOD) is opening a can of worms. It is a theory never defined exactly and not a dogma, in fact it conflicts with all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, unless you do not read the dogmas as they are written, actually ignore them all (hence my satirical posting before). Baptism of desire can mean anything to one who says they believe in BOD, here in CathInfo we call the believers in baptism of desire BODers, and their belief ranges from:

- The purest form - a catechumen who is on his way to be baptized, but gets run over by a car. They say he can be saved by his desire to be baptized, and he goes to an undecided place, no unanimous decision if they go direct to heaven like if they were baptized in water and got run over one second later, or if they go to Purgatory, and some people even say they go to limbo of the infants. (In my 25 years of experience on the subject, of all BODers today, less than 1%, if that, limit their BOD to this purest form)

- Then you have the person that desires to be a Catholic, and believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (Jesus Christ is God and Man), but does not know about baptism, and gets run over by a car. The theory is that he will be saved by his implicit desire to be baptized. His desire for baptism is implicit in his desire to be a Catholic and his two beliefs. This term "implicit" is twisted by practically all BODers to mean any desire whatsoever, and no belief in the Trinity and Incarnation (see next)

- Then you have baptism of desire stretched to its maximum, which is that with not even any desire, no desire whatsoever to be a Catholic or baptized, nor any belief in the Trinity or Incarnation, a person is saved by implicit faith (they will call it implicit baptism of desire which it is not). It is a Hindu who is a good person will be saved by his belief in a God that rewards. By believing in a God that rewards he implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation and wants to be a Catholic. That is what 99% of BODers believe when they are pressed to talk straight, which takes a lot of effort, for they are embarrassed of what they believe. BODers do not know how to explain it like that, they can't accept that a "nice" person will go to hell, so they seek teachers according to their own desires and that is how their teachers explain it.

Good Night.

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2019, 05:07:35 AM »

Quote from: poche on November 19, 2019, 11:44:19 PM

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

This is another teaching of the BC that needs correcting. The Thrice Defined Dogma teaches that #2 will result in dying in mortal sin, which makes #3 an impossibility.

Quote

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

This answer is in direct contradiction to the dogma EENS. They died outside of the Church in the state of sanctifying grace? - without ever making use use of the sacrament of penance? - because he firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and for that he was rewarded with dying without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul? Amazing!

This is teaching -"What you don't know can't hurt you" - which is very convenient for the living, but not at all for the dying.

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 20, 2019, 03:02:43 AM

Thank you for posting these quotes. Was the Baltimore catechism created with infallibility privileges?

These teachings directly conflict with those posted by LastTradhican. Either those councils' teachings are in error of the Baltimore catechism is in error.

The Baltimore Catechism is a text book like any other text book, and like any text book, it is not infallible. Only the pope is infallible and even then, he is infallible only when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra.
The Baltimore Catechism is in error.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** November 20, 2019, 05:31:57 AM »

Ah, yes, the one point on which most Traditional Catholics agree with poche. Traditional Catholics and poche team up against the EENS dogma. Should this not give you pause to think? Herod and Pilate became friends that day.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #36 on:** November 20, 2019, 08:03:29 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 05:31:57 AM

Ah, yes, the one point on which most Traditional Catholics agree with poche. Traditional Catholics and poche team up against the EENS dogma. Should this not give you pause to think? Herod and Pilate became friends that day.

and Banezian has a worse Negative Reputation score ratio than Poche! Banezian 6 to1, Poche 4.33 to 1. That's 50% worse than Poche.

Banezian · « **Reply #37 on:** November 20, 2019, 10:44:57 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 05:31:57 AM

Ah, yes, the one point on which most Traditional Catholics agree with poche. Traditional Catholics and poche team up against the EENS dogma. Should this not give you pause to think? Herod and Pilate became friends that day.

EENS is a dogma but so is BOD. How far BOD extends is up for debate but to reject it all together is proximate to heresy

Banezian · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2019, 10:46:12 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on November 20, 2019, 08:03:29 AM

and Banezian has a worse Negative Reputation score ratio than Poche! Banezian 6 to1, Poche 4.33 to 1. That's 50% worse than Poche.

So what? That just means I’m not a YEC or a Feeneyite

DecemRationis · « **Reply #39 on:** November 20, 2019, 11:13:14 AM »

Father Feeney and the cause of St. Benedict Center and the "Feeneyites" would have been totally unnecessary if the wise counsel of Pius IX was not neglected:

Quote

We have learned with grief that another error, not less melancholy, is introduced into certain parts of the Catholic world, and has taken possession of the souls of many Catholics. Carried away with a hope for the eternal salvation of those who are out of the true Church of Christ, they do not cease to inquire with solicitude what shall be the fate and the condition after death of men who are not submissive to the Catholic faith. Seduced by vain reasoning they make to these questions replies conformably to that perverse doctrine. Far from Us, Venerable Brothers, to lay claim to put limits to the Divine mercy, which is infinite! Far from Us to scrutinize the counsels and mysterious judgments of God, unfathomable depth where human thought cannot penetrate ! But it belongs to the duty of Our Apostolic office to excite your Episcopal solicitude and vigilance to make all possible efforts to remove from the minds of men the opinion, as impious as it is fatal, according to which people can find in any religion the way of eternal salvation. Employ all the resources of your minds and of your learning to demonstrate to the people committed to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no respect contrary to the Divine mercy and justice. Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge.

On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things? When delivered from the bonds of the body, we shall see God as He is, we will comprehend perfectly by what admirable and indissoluble bond the divine mercy and the divine justice are united; but as long as we are upon the earth, bent under the weight of this mortal mass which overloads the soul, let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted.

https://novusordowatch.org/pius9-singulari-quadam/

Let us simply say what our faith orders us to say, i.e., there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, because "TO SEEK TO PENETRATE FURTHER IS NOT PERMITTED." You can focus on "Feeneyism" if you must, but ask yourself who is doing what Pius IX did not permit? It's not Feeneyites, who hold to what the "Faith orders" us to hold, the strict dogma of EENS.

Mind you, that was written to bishops by Pius IX. Who the hell are we to speculate about these issues? And I'm addressing myself as well as anyone else here.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** November 20, 2019, 11:28:50 AM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 10:44:57 AM

EENS is a dogma but so is BOD.

Uhm, no. Not even close.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** November 20, 2019, 11:45:21 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 20, 2019, 11:13:14 AM

Father Feeney and the cause of St. Benedict Center and the "Feeneyites" would have been totally unnecessary if the wise counsel of Pius IX was not neglected:

Indeed, Father Feeney's cause was simply about EENS, with Father Feeney holding fast to this admonition from Pope Pius IX. Only later did BoD even enter the picture, as it was being used disingenuously in order to undermine EENS dogma. There isn't a true "Feeneyite" around who would make a big deal about someone holding BoD who did not at the same time believe that salvation could be had in any religion. BoD was gradually extended to cover the case of those who did not profess the Catholic faith, whereas it was originally only understood to apply to catechumens. But the modern-day promoters of BoD could hardly care less about the relatively-rare case of a catechumen who died before Baptism; rather, their only intention in promoting it is to leverage BoD in order to overturn and undermine EENS dogma.

Pius IX, and Pope after Pope after Pope, explicitly condemned the notion that salvation could be had in any other religion than in the observance of the true Catholic religion. Yet we have Trad after Trad after Trad claiming that "Hindus in Tibet" and Jєωs and Muslims and Protestants and any men of good will, practically, can be saved in the observance of their religion. WHAT PART OF CONDEMNED do you folks not understand?

There was a poster here named Arvinger that most of us "Feeneyites" saw as an ALLY in this polemic rather than an adversary, even though he himself believed in BoD ... because he limited it to only those who had the Catholic faith, and did not extend it to heretics and infidels. This is the common dishonest tactic of BoDers, to hurl out pro-BoD quotes from St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, etc. ... implying that these men thereby (i.e. by their support of BoD) also support the false lengths to which modern BoDers apply the notion, practically imputing to these Doctors the belief that non-Catholics can be saved, whereas in point of fact they explicitly rejected that.

Also, if Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, and Protestants can be saved, then they must be in the Church ... since outside the Church there can be no salvation. So, now we have a Church that includes non-Catholics. So, sure, it subsists of Catholics, but it is not limited to them, but includes many non-Catholics as well. Starting to sound familiar yet?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** November 20, 2019, 11:50:56 AM »

I'd love to interrogate the Traditional Catholics who ... 1) reject Vatican II ecclesiology as erroneous or even heretical and 2) believe that non-Catholics can be saved.

MAJOR: There can be no salvation outside the Church.
MINOR: Non-Catholics, including infidels (Hindus, Muslims, Jєωs) can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Non-Catholics, including infidels, can be inside the Church.

Then please explain how this differs from Vatican II ecclesiology, where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics.

Banezian · « **Reply #43 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:16:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 20, 2019, 11:28:50 AM

Uhm, no. Not even close.

Umm yes. From St. Alphonsus
“ We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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.”

And here are a bunch of other theologians who say the exact same thing
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiL5OaOsfnlAhXLtVkKHQynBkQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmri.org%2F02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml&usg=AOvVaw0usz7RT-aG42dbTK8M3Rpl
Lad, I’m sorry, but you’re ideas don’t mean squat when they differ from men of this caliber. To follow you over St. Alphonsus would be a great example of the blind leading the blind.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** November 20, 2019, 12:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 20, 2019, 12:16:32 PM

Umm yes. From St. Alphonsus

Uhm, St. Alphonsus is not the Church. Even of the pro-BoD theologians cited by the pro-BoD Father Cekada, the majority of them merely held BoD to be Church teaching without any note assigned, with only a few of them elevating it to theologically certain, and a small minority to de fide ... undoubtedly following the mistake of St. Alphonsus.

Author Topic: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved? (Read 5870 times)

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

ascanio1

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

ascanio1

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Last Tradhican

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Stubborn

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Last Tradhican

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

DecemRationis

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Banezian

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - can an Orthodox be saved?