Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Viva Cristo Rey on April 28, 2019, 05:10:23 PM
-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-ѕуηαgσgυє-shooting-suspect-identified-1-dead-3-injured-including-rabbi-authorities-say (https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-ѕуηαgσgυє-shooting-suspect-identified-1-dead-3-injured-including-rabbi-authorities-say)
-
Of course. Catholics should be condemning any and all violence against any group of people — it is not the answer to anything.
-
I agree. Also, don’t want Muslims to be slaughtered either. These people need to convert to Jesus who is our true God.
-
It is my hope that they embraced Our Lord with their last breath.
-
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
It is my hope that they embraced Our Lord with their last breath.
Realistically I don’t see how it is possible any of them are saved. They are sll burning in hell fire,,,,no?
-
Realistically I don’t see how it is possible any of them are saved. They are sll burning in hell fire,,,,no?
She died giving her life in place of the rabbi. She followed the example of Christ
-
She died giving her life in place of the rabbi. She followed the example of Christ
So you believe Jєωs who die as Jєωs can be saved?
-
So you believe Jєωs who die as Jєωs can be saved?
I leave the question of who is saved and who is not to God.
-
It is my hope that they embraced Our Lord with their last breath.
It is my hope that I win the Powerball or Mega Millions Lottery
-
Of course. Catholics should be condemning any and all violence against any group of people — it is not the answer to anything.
Then you oppose the Holy Crusades, too.
-
One who dies a Jєω will be damned. ~ St. Vincent Ferrer
-
I leave the question of who is saved and who is not to God.
The Church has given us the answer to that question numerous times. When the Church makes an infallible definition, we can be sure it is Christ who is speaking.
-
Of course. Catholics should be condemning any and all violence against any group of people — it is not the answer to anything.
Perhaps you should tell past popes of this as well.....
Snippet from Pope Urban II call to crusade against Muslims in the Holy Land declared at Clermont in 1095;
"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
-
Perhaps you should tell past popes of this as well.....
Snippet from Pope Urban II call to crusade against Muslims in the Holy Land declared at Clermont in 1095;
"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
When you use the name of religion to support violence you make us no better than the ISIS terrorists perpetuated it.
-
The Church has given us the answer to that question numerous times. When the Church makes an infallible definition, we can be sure it is Christ who is speaking.
I don't know what Poche's line of thought is, but for non-Feenneyites (I'm using Feeneyite here as a descriptor, not an insult) it might be possible to be inside the Church without being a visible member. Furthermore there's always presumably the possibility of a deathbed conversion, though of course that depends on whether you believe baptism of desire is a thing, I know some people here don't.
It seems conceivably possible to say what Poche said without denying any dogma. Whether that is in fact what's going on, or whether Poche is in fact denying dogma, I don't know.
-
She died giving her life in place of the rabbi. She followed the example of Christ
You do realize that this is not martyrdom, don’t you? I'm as certain as one can be that she didn’t have our Lord in mind when she acted. She may have been a nice person who was naturally caring and unselfish, but that doesn’t mean that the act was meritorious.
-
You do realize that this is not martyrdom, don’t you? I'm as certain as one can be that she didn’t have our Lord in mind when she acted. She may have been a nice person who was naturally caring and unselfish, but that doesn’t mean that the act was meritorious.
It may not be martyrdom in the strict sense, but whenever this type of thing happens, John 15:13 always comes to mind:
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
-
It may not be martyrdom in the strict sense, but whenever this type of thing happens, John 15:13 always comes to mind:
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
It’s not martyrdom in the Christian/Catholic sense, period.
-
It’s not martyrdom in the Christian/Catholic sense, period.
And I didn't say it was. I just meant that I wonder if it still has some expiatory value for the person who dies for someone else because of that text.
I'm sure this has been addressed before in some theology manual somewhere.
-
Incredibly difficult question.
For me, this is the clearest, most succinct understanding:
FR. A. TANQUERY
Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1):
"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 [implicit or explicit], 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."
Additionally:
It is certain that all who die infused with sanctifying grace are saved (God's grace is not communicated to the reprobates in hell);
It is certain that sanctifying grace can operate outside the visible Church (e.g., valid baptisms in some sects, etc.);
It is certain that men can be joined to the Church by sanctifying grace, even though they are not members of the visible Church;
It is never certain if or whether any particular person has met the requirement of implicit baptism of desire, because making this determination requires knowledge of the internal forum, which is known to God alone.
Therefore, in the case of the Jєωess, was she saved?
The presumption is that this Jєωess died a Jєωess, and therefore was damned.
The possibility is that this Jєωess had an at least implicit desire for baptism, but only God can know.
-
Incredibly difficult question.
For me, this is the clearest, most succinct understanding:
FR. A. TANQUERY
Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1):
"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 [implicit or explicit], 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."
Additionally:
It is certain that all who die infused with sanctifying grace are saved (God's grace is not communicated to the reprobates in hell);
It is certain that sanctifying grace can operate outside the visible Church (e.g., valid baptisms in some sects, etc.);
It is certain that men can be joined to the Church by sanctifying grace, even though they are not members of the visible Church;
It is never certain if or whether any particular person has met the requirement of implicit baptism of desire, because making this determination requires knowledge of the internal forum, which is known to God alone.
Therefore, in the case of the Jєωess, was she saved?
The presumption is that this Jєωess died a Jєωess, and therefore was damned.
The possibility is that this Jєωess had an at least implicit desire for baptism, but only God can know.
Nice post, however I would add the words “very remote” before the word possibility.
-
Nice post, however I would add the words “very remote” before the word possibility.
Yes, unfortunately, I would have to agree:
The fidelity to God's laws as known to the invincibly ignorant would have to be accomplished without the aid of the sacraments, making such fidelity exceedingly difficult.
Heaven knows, such fidelity is difficult enough even with the aid of the sacraments!
-
I leave the question of who is saved and who is not to God.
That is non-answer, it is just the cowards way out.
Here is how a Catholic is commanded to answer the question:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
-
It is my hope that they embraced Our Lord with their last breath.
There is nothing wrong with this answer in the sense that the writer is praying that the person converted, which is the only way he could be saved, provided that he was unknowingly baptized during his life at some time. It is a well known fact that Catholic nannies would secretly baptize the children of the Jєωs that they worked for and nurses baptized the sick.
All of the above is very rare, and always remember that it is God that took that person's life by surprise, with an untimely death. If the person was going to convert, God could have kept them alive for another 50 years if need be. Everyone that is in Hell, had they been allowed to live 1000 years, would have continued in their rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Mother, and His Church, and even today in Hell, they continue to despise Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Mother, and His Church.
-
Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. ~ Pope Innocent III
Well should the Jєω mourn who, not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition ... The Jєωs have crucified the Son and rejected the Holy Ghost, and their souls are the abode of the devil. ~ St. John Chrysostom
-
When you use the name of religion to support violence you make us no better than the ISIS terrorists perpetuated it.
I didn't use the name of religion, I used the name of a pope. and he used the name of Christ.
Wars ( violence) have been fought "in the name of religion" since time immemorial. Catholicism has used "violence" throughout the course of the history of the Church, mainly as a defense against heresy, Islam, paganism or the ѕуηαgσgυє.
Even Yahweh in the O.T. commanded the Hebrews to annihilate heathen peoples. a direct order of violence from God Himself.
Violence, in and of itself is not necessarily evil, but many times employed to destroy an evil.
I'm sure judaizers like yourself pooch had no problem when the Allies in WWII used violence, many times in the name of religion against the peoples of the German and Japanese nations. Then I assume you would have hardly compared them to ISIS terrorists.
-
I didn't use the name of religion, I used the name of a pope. and he used the name of Christ.
Wars ( violence) have been fought "in the name of religion" since time immemorial. Catholicism has used "violence" throughout the course of the history of the Church, mainly as a defense against heresy, Islam, paganism or the ѕуηαgσgυє.
Even Yahweh in the O.T. commanded the Hebrews to annihilate heathen peoples. a direct order of violence from God Himself.
Violence, in and of itself is not necessarily evil, but many times employed to destroy an evil.
I'm sure judaizers like yourself pooch had no problem when the Allies in WWII used violence, many times in the name of religion against the peoples of the German and Japanese nations. Then I assume you would have hardly compared them to ISIS terrorists.
"And I have always been on good terms with Jєωs." - Pope St Pius X
https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/herzl1904 (https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/herzl1904)
-
"And I have always been on good terms with Jєωs." - Pope St Pius X
https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/herzl1904
Poche is being deceitful. That quote is taken out of context.
Pope St. Pius X didn't recognize the Jєωs because they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Jєωs have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people" ~ Pope St. Pius X
-
Perhaps you should tell past popes of this as well.....
Snippet from Pope Urban II call to crusade against Muslims in the Holy Land declared at Clermont in 1095;
"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
I'm going to amend my point to mean things like shooting up someone else's religious temple. That's wrong. There's a justified time and place for things like the Crusades and other conflicts, though.
-
Poche is being deceitful. That quote is taken out of context.
Pope St. Pius X didn't recognize the Jєωs because they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Jєωs have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people" ~ Pope St. Pius X
It is true that His Holiness demonstrated theological and political disagreement with this particular zionist, but that doesn't mean that he had to be nasty toward them. He himself told Herzl that just that week he had a group of them. He dined with them. In his own words, he was on good terms with them. To be otherwise would be to be in contradiction with the spirit of Pope St Pius X.
-
Hey, Poche said in hos post that Pope St Pius X had a "theological disagreement" with a particular Zionist.
It's a disagreement. You say X, I say Y - who's to say who is right?
Poche, which theological position is correct? Catholicism or Judaism?
-
Hey, Poche said in hos post that Pope St Pius X had a "theological disagreement" with a particular Zionist.
It's a disagreement. You say X, I say Y - who's to say who is right?
Poche, which theological position is correct? Catholicism or Judaism?
In this case Pope St Plus X was right. But that being so it doesn't justify gratuitous hatred against the Jєωs. Pope St Plus said that the Jєωs were his friends.
-
In this case Pope St Plus X was right. But that being so it doesn't justify gratuitous hatred against the Jєωs. Pope St Plus said that the Jєωs were his friends.
In this case, Pope St Pius X was right?
Poche, let's go back to what I asked but phrased slightly different.
Do you think Catholicism is theologically correct or do you think Judaism has the right answers?
-
In this case, Pope St Pius X was right?
Poche, let's go back to what I asked but phrased slightly different.
Do you think Catholicism is theologically correct or do you think Judaism has the right answers?
There is only one answer to that. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth
-
There is only one answer to that. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth
Classic conciliarist speech, poche.
"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... "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... "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."
Just answer yes or no.
-
Classic conciliarist speech, poche.
Just answer yes or no.
I thought that by saying that the Catholic Church having the platitude of truth that that would be a clear affirmation that the Catholic Church was the true Faith.
Anything good coming to us from the Jєωs would only be in relation to how it corresponds to what is found in the Catholic Church.
-
I thought that by saying that the Catholic Church having the platitude of truth that that would be a clear affirmation that the Catholic Church was the true Faith.
Anything good coming to us from the Jєωs would only be in relation to how it corresponds to what is found in the Catholic Church.
This is Olympic gold medal-level question dodging, as usual. Yes or no?
-
Of course. Catholics should be condemning any and all violence against any group of people — it is not the answer to anything.
To a point. Violence perpetrated by individuals without authority should be condemned, but if the state were to impose harsh penalties against various "groups" of people defined by immortal, deviant, heretical, subversive, or otherwise depraved principles, then there's no issue.
-
I leave the question of who is saved and who is not to God.
Your leave it to your own private interpretation of God's mind. I on the other hand go with what the Church has taught that God has revealed about the criteria for salvation. Whether any particular individual met such criteria, of course, can only be known to God, but this does not mean that we do not know the objective criteria for salvation. We can know with the certainty of faith that souls who do not meet certain criteria cannot be saved, e.g. if they are in a state of mortal sin, if they lack supernatural faith, if they are outside the Church. So this answer is always subterfuge. Based on the fact that we cannot know with certainty whether any souls who's passed away met the criteria, people like you attempt to undermine the actual objective criteria established by God and taught by the Church. And even in the case of individuals, the clear presumption is that they are lost if they showed no outward indications of ever having met said criteria. Consequently, the presumption is that the dead Jєωs are in hell.
-
It may not be martyrdom in the strict sense, but whenever this type of thing happens, John 15:13 always comes to mind:
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
t's not martyrdom in ANY sense. Without supernatural virtue and sanctifying grace, ANY such virtue can be no more than natural virtue and cannot have supernatural merit. This is Catholicism 101, my friend, even prescinding from any considerations of "Feeneyism".
-
And I didn't say it was. I just meant that I wonder if it still has some expiatory value for the person who dies for someone else because of that text.
I for one believe that natural virtue can in fact offset some of the temporal (sensible) punishment in hell for those who practice it. People forget that hell is not a single monolithic place, but admits of varying degrees (this is even taught in one of the dogmatic definitions of EENS). There are probably (IMO) some people who are in hell, strictly speaking, who approach the natural happiness of a limbo due to their practice of natural virtue, who suffer very little, and may in fact be enjoying the equivalent of the "happy hunting ground". God is perfectly just and rewards/punishes each accordingly. One of the greatest pushbacks against the Church dogma of EENS comes from this misconception regarding the nature of hell. Now, if such a one existed who practiced natural virtue nearly flawlessly, why wouldn't God give them the grace of entering the Church? Well, #1 it's a grace, and #2 perhaps God knows that if made this offer the person would reject it and in fact end up with a significantly worse eternal fate. We know also, then, that God is perfectly merciful. We do not find in hell a virtuous Jєωιѕн grandmother who gave her life to save her children standing right next to Joe Staling and burning in the same intensity of flame. Yet, regardless of how great natural virtue is, it cannot ever merit sanctifying grace and the beatific vision. No person can merit such a thing, and the privilege belongs only to God and those with whom He wills to share it. In fact, our natures is INCAPABLE of supporting such a vision, since it is beyond the capabilities of our nature, and that is why the souls in limbo suffer not at all, since they can't even begin to understand what is is they are missing, and the lack of this supernatural vision is not in any way a defect of their nature, nor does it compromise their natural happiness.
-
Your leave it to your own private interpretation of God's mind. I on the other hand go with what the Church has taught that God has revealed about the criteria for salvation. Whether any particular individual met such criteria, of course, can only be known to God, but this does not mean that we do not know the objective criteria for salvation. We can know with the certainty of faith that souls who do not meet certain criteria cannot be saved, e.g. if they are in a state of mortal sin, if they lack supernatural faith, if they are outside the Church. So this answer is always subterfuge. Based on the fact that we cannot know with certainty whether any souls who's passed away met the criteria, people like you attempt to undermine the actual objective criteria established by God and taught by the Church. And even in the case of individuals, the clear presumption is that they are lost if they showed no outward indications of ever having met said criteria. Consequently, the presumption is that the dead Jєωs are in hell.
Does any serious theologian (I realize Poche is not a theologian) say that people can be saved outside the Church? or would they just speculate that there are lots and lots of people who are inside the church despite not being visible members?
Because in the latter case, while I see too much speculation as likely dangerous, that's different than saying its heretical. But saying someone can be saved outside the Church would be literally heretical.
Am I missing something?
-
Does any serious theologian (I realize Poche is not a theologian) say that people can be saved outside the Church? or would they just speculate that there are lots and lots of people who are inside the church despite not being visible members?
Because in the latter case, while I see too much speculation as likely dangerous, that's different than saying its heretical. But saying someone can be saved outside the Church would be literally heretical.
Am I missing something?
ByzCat,
What I quoted above is from Unitatis Redintegratio
"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... "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... "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."
Yes, "serious" theologians actually believe this. It's in official Church docuмents. This docuмent states that God is using heretical and schismatic congregations as means of salvation. Also, stating these assemblies experience a life of grace.
We know with absolute certitude that in order to be saved you must:
1) Profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire
2) Die inside the Church
3) Die in a state of grace
Any other speculation is just that, speculation.
-
ByzCat,
What I quoted above is from Unitatis Redintegratio
Yes, "serious" theologians actually believe this. It's in official Church docuмents. This docuмent states that God is using heretical and schismatic congregations as means of salvation. Also, stating these assemblies experience a life of grace.
We know with absolute certitude that in order to be saved you must:
1) Profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire
2) Die inside the Church
3) Die in a state of grace
Any other speculation is just that, speculation.
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.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church)
-
Poche, a Jєωιѕн sin-agog is the about last place on earth you ever want to be caught dead in.
For 2000 years the Jєωs have echoed Satan, saying to God in His face: "We will not serve you!" They know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, just the same as they found out but denied that it was God that they crucified.
Now, concerning those Jєωs who were unjustly murdered, there is only one thing that we can be absolutely certain of, that is that God's Justice has most assuredly been served to those poor souls.
-
ByzCat,
What I quoted above is from Unitatis Redintegratio
Yes, "serious" theologians actually believe this. It's in official Church docuмents. This docuмent states that God is using heretical and schismatic congregations as means of salvation. Also, stating these assemblies experience a life of grace.
We know with absolute certitude that in order to be saved you must:
1) Profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire
2) Die inside the Church
3) Die in a state of grace
Any other speculation is just that, speculation.
Hmmmmmm, where is the dogmatic definition for point #1? Point #1 seems like a more explicit statement even then "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
What do you think of the quotation Poche presents from the Baltimore Catechism?
-
To a point. Violence perpetrated by individuals without authority should be condemned, but if the state were to impose harsh penalties against various "groups" of people defined by immortal, deviant, heretical, subversive, or otherwise depraved principles, then there's no issue.
You realize that you are writing in contradiction to Pope St Pius X.
-
Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
Pope Benedict XV (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV) (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
-
Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
Pope Benedict XV (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV) (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
Amen.