Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:02 am



Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational premise. The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could affirm this rational interpretation of the Council and ask Cardinal Gerhard Muller to respond.The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s present interpretation of the Council is irrational since he depends on the Marchetti premise.
This interpretation is specifically related to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.It is in line with the traditional understanding of other religions and Christian communities.
_____________________

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS WE REALLY CANNOT HAVE A REASONABLE HOPE THAT ALL MEN ARE SAVED

Vatican Council II indicates that most people are on the way to Hell. Since most people die without ‘faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II). There may be good things in other religions but the religions are not paths to salvation.Their members die without ‘faith and baptism’.

So according to Vatican Council II we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved.

Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church ( with faith and baptism) and it does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. So there are no exceptions to the Council’s teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

We cannot meet anyone on the streets of Rome, who we know will be saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) , a ray of the Truth which enlightens all men (NA 2),elements of sanctification and truth(LG Cool,imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc.

Vatican Council II contradicts Hans Von Balthazar.
-Lionel Andrades
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/dare-we-hope-that-all-will-be-saved.html
__________
_______________

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL

Contrary to what your parish priest has been saying Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims and Jews in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell.

So get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and Evangelization based on the truth.

Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.

The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.

Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council IIWhosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?

Is he trying to protect someone?

So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it?Is he protecting himself?
__________________________


February 25, 2015
Vatican Council says we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-says-we-really-cannot.html

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:09 am

Lionel Andrades wrote: Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church (with faith and baptism) and it does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. So there are no exceptions to the Council’s teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Several errors/logical fallacies packed into just two sentences (though two of the specific errors - no’s 1 and 4 below - are of same erroneous species).

1. Yes, Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church (with faith and baptism), but she also teaches that God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end (salvation). Nowhere does VCII suggest that formal external membership is intrinsic to salvation, and clearly teaches otherwise.

2. "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith". Actually, we do know of several saints martyred in the baptism of blood without benefit of the sacrament of baptism. That the Church includes these narratives in her liturgical texts is proof enough that she holds the baptism of blood as a true doctrine.

3. And the fact that "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know [in the present] or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith" is entirely irrelevant, for neither can we know, to use your own words, of any de facto case of someone saved with an explicit desire and with the baptism of water, and thus, the dogma does NOT suggest that we can know (now or in the future) of any one adult’s salvation (with certainty). So what is the point when the point is based on a logical fallacy?

4. “So there are no exceptions to the Council’s teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.” By which you mean the alleged exclusive salvation of external incorporation, a private interpretation the Council not only does not teach, but clearly rejects. No need to cite chapter and verse, you should know them well enough.

Really, Lionel, how do you get away with such a blatant misrepresentation of the Council, and with the logical fallacy of equating the possibility of extra-sacramental justification/salvation and internal incorporation with the salvation of “dead men walking”, when you cannot name even one single baptized adult living today who is absolutely assured of salvation (saved "dead men walking").

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:41 am

Lionel Andrades wrote:  
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council IIWhosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Quite so, Lionel, I do not disagree. But you must know, based on her teaching elsewhere within these same documents, that the Church is using "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" purely in the objective sense (as well she should), with "knowing" being a deliberate and culpable act of the will against what the Muslim or Jew knows to be the true teaching of Christ.

This is the approach traditionally taken by the Church with Muslims, Jews and the Orthodox, assuming, for the sake of their salvation, the urgency of accepting the truths of the Church, once they are known. Subjectively, however, we cannot know if "mortal sin" actually exists. The Church, in the name of ecumenism, would rather assume "good will" and place its faith in a sort of collective ignorance, even if they "know", at least objectively, full well what the Church actually teaches.

Sadly, we know where the emphasis on the subjective has lead - the assumption that the Church is NOT necessary for salvation since any subjective "good-willed' orientation towards the truth and the Church, even while rejecting Christ and several of her dogmas, is not perceived as a true barrier to one's salvation.

For the sake of men's salvation, the Church needs to reclaim some of her "rigorous" wisdom, and stop pretending, as a matter of de facto policy, that those traveling outside the one true Church are on a path to salvation.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:59 pm

MRyan wrote:
Lionel Andrades wrote:  
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council IIWhosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Quite so, Lionel, I do not disagree. But you must know, based on her teaching elsewhere within these same documents, that the Church is using "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" purely in the objective sense (as well she should), with "knowing" being a deliberate and culpable act of the will against what the Muslim or Jew knows to be the true teaching of Christ.

This is the approach traditionally taken by the Church with Muslims, Jews and the Orthodox, assuming, for the sake of their salvation, the urgency of accepting the truths of the Church, once they are known. Subjectively, however, we cannot know if "mortal sin" actually exists. The Church, in the name of ecumenism, would rather assume "good will" and place its faith in a sort of collective ignorance, even if they "know", at least objectively, full well what the Church actually teaches.

Sadly, we know where the emphasis on the subjective has lead - the assumption that the Church is NOT necessary for salvation since any subjective "good-willed' orientation towards the truth and the Church, even while rejecting Christ and several of her dogmas, is not perceived as a true barrier to one's salvation.

For the sake of men's salvation, the Church needs to reclaim some of her "rigorous" wisdom, and stop pretending, as a matter of de facto policy, that those traveling outside the one true Church are on a path to salvation.

If the Church doesn’t know who is saved, I got an idea: just say that. And then say, but we know how one can be saved: faith, baptism, repentance and confession after falling . . .


I mean, if we don’t know if individual Catholics are saved, why oh why speculate as to non-Catholics? It makes no sense. 


I guess some clerics and theologians think the following doesn’t apply to them:

Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on earth, encumbered with this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5); To proceed with further inquiry is contrary to divine law.*


* The Latin text uses the noun nefas, which means something contrary to divine law, sinful, unlawful, abominable; an impious or wicked deed.


http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2013/07/venerable-pope-pius-ix-and-invincible.html



Such talk about the salvation of those outside the Catholic faith - “contrary to divine law.” Sounds about right to me. Where’s the “tenacious” clinging?

Let the jousting begin again. Smile

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:59 pm

tornpage wrote:  
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2013/07/venerable-pope-pius-ix-and-invincible.html

Such talk about the salvation of those outside the Catholic faith - “contrary to divine law.” Sounds about right to me. Where’s the “tenacious” clinging?

Let the jousting begin again.
Tornpage,

So it begins. Hey, you really are out of practice with this whole font and color thingy - ya know?

I find it somewhat humorous that the “Catholic Vox” can thoroughly dissect the three separate passages by Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance and conclude there's nothing to see here folks, for all Pope Pius IX is really saying is that all of those who remain invincibly ignorant of the Faith, and who do not receive the sacrament of baptism before death (who remain outside the visible structure of the Church), are infallibly lost, for God will provide all of these things without fail to those who put no obstacle in His way.

Pope Pius IX must have been just playing politics here – trying to placate the liberals by appearing to throw them the bone of invincible ignorance, but if they read him a little more closely, says the Vox, they would notice an almost imperceptible string attached to the bone of inculpable ignorance, by which he snatches it from their grasp at just the right moment while saying with a belly laugh, ha, just kidding! There is NO EXCUSE - your invincibly ignorant good-willed man of faith in God is damned if he does not become an external member of the Catholic Church before death! How do you like them apples!

Pope Pius IX enjoys this little charade so much that he does it on three separate occasions, each time with a little more “invincible ignorance” gusto! Apparently, he liked a good joke as much as the next man.

The Catholic Vox can’t resist trotting out St. Thomas Aquinas (though Vox rejects his teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire).  

But note what St. Thomas is actually saying: “When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not because of unbelief", meaning not every “unbeliever” (of the divine and Catholic faith) is necessarily damned (the saved will come to possess a supernatural faith vivified by charity), but when such unbelievers are damned, they are not dammed for the sin of unbelief.

This is the same St. Thomas, btw, (and as you know) who taught that the inculpably ignorant child in the woods who comes of age must make a decision for or against God the Creator, as he understands it, and that a state of grace (a state of salvation) is possible without an explicit faith in Jesus Christ. That St. Thomas also believed that God would provide each of His elect with the essential truth of the Incarnate Son as Redeemer does not change this fact, and, as we know, “Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Council of Trent, VI/VI), which was also the common opinion of the Fathers of VCI who held that an implicit faith in Jesus would suffice when it was contained within an explicit supernatural faith in God.

But, this is where it gets really good;

Note that the Pope did not say that God would not punish with eternal punishment anyone "who has not the guilt of deliberate sin." Pius IX did not say this because he knew, as does every Catholic, that the loss of the Beatific Vision suffered by an unbaptized infant is, indeed, eternal punishment for a little baby who never committed a deliberate sin. An infant who dies unbaptized does suffer eternal punishment (the loss of the Beatific Vision), but not eternal torment (pain of the senses due to deliberate sin). Why God decrees this is known only to Him, but that He does decree it is part of Catholic truth.
Eternal punishment? Seriously? Correct me if I'm wrong, but an eternity of natural beatitude/happiness is not a punishment, and neither is it a reward, it is the perfect blend of justice and mercy for those below the age of reason who are deprived of sacramental ablution through no fault of their own.

The Beatific Vision can never be a “loss” if there is no right to it in the first place. By Baptism we earn the right to eternal beatitude, and if we blow it, it’s our loss.

Good grief.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:36 am

MRyan:
1. Yes, Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church (with faith and baptism),

Lionel:
Agreed!

__________________

but she also teaches that God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end (salvation). Nowhere does VCII suggest that formal external membership is intrinsic to salvation, and clearly teaches otherwise.

Lionel:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not bound to the Sacraments. Vatican Council II ?

___________________________

2. "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith". Actually, we do know of several saints martyred in the baptism of blood without benefit of the sacrament of baptism.

Lionel:
In the future?

____________________________

That the Church includes these narratives in her liturgical texts is proof enough that she holds the baptism of blood as a true doctrine.

Lionel:
Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are known to us personally or that they will be saved without the baptism of water in future? These are the two important points for there to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

________________________________

3. And the fact that "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know [in the present] or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith" is entirely irrelevant,

Lionel:
Yes.Since the issue is, 'Are there exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ?' There are none.

_____________________________________

for neither can we know, to use your own words, of any de facto case of someone saved with an explicit desire and with the baptism of water, and thus, the dogma does NOT suggest that we can know (now or in the future) of any one adult’s salvation (with certainty).

Lionel:
The issue is are there exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times. Since if there are exceptions then the dogma would be contradicted. There are none
.
_____________________________________

So what is the point when the point is based on a logical fallacy?

Lionel:
The issue is that there are no exceptions to the dogma since we do not personally know of any exceptions and neither does any Church text before 1949 mention any exceptions.You agree with me here.Vatican Council II does not mention any.

__________________________________________

4. “So there are no exceptions to the Council’s teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.” By which you mean the alleged exclusive salvation of external incorporation, a private interpretation the Council not only does not teach, but clearly rejects.

Lionel:
Yes exclusive salvation by external incorporation. The Council says all need' faith and baptism' (AG 7). All need to be formal members of the Church with faith and baptism.


_____________________

Really, Lionel, how do you get away with such a blatant misrepresentation of the Council..

Lionel:
I have cited an Archbishop, a Dean of Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome and an American apologist supporting me.
They are not saying anything new.It is a fact of life that we cannot see any deceased who are in Heaven who could be explicit exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.Neither does any magisterial document before 1949 make this fantastic  and irrational claim.
_________________________

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

The SSPX has nothing to say!?

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:49 am

Quite so, Lionel, I do not disagree. But you must know, based on her teaching elsewhere within these same documents, that the Church is using "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" purely in the objective sense (as well she should), with "knowing" being a deliberate and culpable act of the will against what the Muslim or Jew knows to be the true teaching of Christ.

Lionel:
Yes!
The magisterium has accepted the mistake from the 1949 Letter.
However we have a choice. We can still interpret the Council based on Ad Gentes 7. This would be traditional and in line with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

________________________________

This is the approach traditionally taken by the Church with Muslims, Jews and the Orthodox, assuming, for the sake of their salvation, the urgency of accepting the truths of the Church, once they are known. Subjectively, however, we cannot know if "mortal sin" actually exists. The Church, in the name of ecumenism, would rather assume "good will" and place its faith in a sort of collective ignorance, even if they "know", at least objectively, full well what the Church actually teaches.

Lionel:
Yes the Magisterium is using the Marchetti inference. Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani assumed there was salvation outside the Church. For him cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible and personally known in 1949.Otherwise how could there be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma ?. So he assumed that all do not need to enter the Church. Since there were known exceptions for him in 1949.Persons saved and now in Heaven were known exceptions! This is irrational and makes no sense.Yet upon this nonsense he concluded that all do not need to enter the Church.This was accepted during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII . It still is accepted today by the Vatican Curia.

______________________________________

Sadly, we know where the emphasis on the subjective has lead - the assumption that the Church is NOT necessary for salvation since any subjective "good-willed' orientation towards the truth and the Church, even while rejecting Christ and several of her dogmas, is not perceived as a true barrier to one's salvation.

Lionel:
Yes!
It is heresy and irrationality which is the official teaching of the magisterium and they want the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculater to interpret Vatican Council II with this heresy.

______________________________________

For the sake of men's salvation, the Church needs to reclaim some of her "rigorous" wisdom, and stop pretending, as a matter of de facto policy, that those traveling outside the one true Church are on a path to salvation.

Lionel:
The Vatican does not seem to want to make the correction. Neither are the traditionalists commenting upon this.
Marchetti was in error and the Magisterium approved it. The SSPX has nothing to say!?

______________________________________

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:31 pm

Christ to Catholicism

PART TWO: DOGMATIC ECCLESIOLOGY

X. No Salvation Outside of the Church

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:03 pm

Sorry Lionel,

By all means please read as offered by MRyan the words of Father John Hardon. I found them most comforting and helpful in my journey.

The real issue is that those in the Catholic Church MUST return to sound doctrine and catechizes in place of sound bytes , laugh tracks and rampant Catholic individualism of thought. They MUST do the red and say the black without any concern for their personal popularity. They MUST be motivated by their congregations respecting and liking them for the truth that they teach rather than their warm and fuzzy style. The greatest compliment and the one that would be the most pleasing before God would be for a parishioner to say that they like Father because he is helping them by what he teaches in order to be a better Catholic in order to attain salvation.
It is unfortunate Lionel that despite our intense back and forth discussions that you continue to misunderstand the unfathomable and unknown nature of God's possible mercies. Why must you continually try to understand, calculate or dictate the will of God in these cases. The Church defines and explains how difficult and how holy a person would need to be to attain Salvation in these conditions The Church has declared Saints in the past who DIED as catechumens and/or Martyrs. So they are KNOWN to us AFTER they died. What has happened in the past can also happen in the present or future as declared Saints by the Church or declared Saints by God unknown to us on earth. Do not interfere with this , Lionel. By attacking the Church you attack God. You have admitted to me that God is not bound by the sacraments while at the same time it is eternally true that we are BOUND by them. It is so simple what we are to do and teach. There is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and one Baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins. We are commanded to teach this certainty to all and NO Catholic is allowed to presume, predict or teach anything other than this command ever to anyone. Why is that so difficult for you to understand without your wrong interpretation of true Church teaching on Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire? You compare yourself as someone who has the same stance as Father Feeney. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lionel, you believe in the possibilities of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, under your rules unfortunately, while Father Feeney denied that they could result in salvation. That was the reason for the letter of the Holy office in 1949.
Had Father Feeney gone to Rome as he was ordered to do, the letter would most likely never been necessary. We will never know. By attacking the letter you are attacking the Church. Your claim that the letter was a change in catechesis is wrong. When you say that these teachings did not exist before 1949 you are wrong. MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ) referenced in the letter of 1949
Pope Pius XII Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943 discusses the very issues that are in the letter of the Holy Office. Also among many other references IN the letter is:

ASINGULARI QUADAM
ALLOCUTION OF POPE PIUS IX
DECEMBER 9, 1854


"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is UNLAWFULL to proceed further in inquiry."
This was intended for you Lionel. DO NOT proceed further in your inquiry. And all in the Church , myself included would be closer to God in obeying these wise and simple words of Pope Pius IX always and everywhere.

And yet I have the highest hope that Father Feeney is in Heaven. He loved and defended the Church and saw that modernism and unfaithful liberal catechizes had invaded that which cherished more than life itself. Give me a Father Feeney, Lionel or a Flatterus anytime over the vast majority of those in the Catholic Church who teach, imply, suggest or as you like to say infer that someone can or God forbid, will be saved outside the Catholic Church. Lionel, your problem is not with the Church BUT with those in the Church who teach error. We in the Catholic Church do not follow 'dead men' but the son of the living God, Jesus Christ. The centuries are full of now dead men who started their own religion. Lionel I pray that you not be one of them. Do not let your misunderstanding of Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood undermine or endanger your soul for you completely DO UNDERSTAND that we are commanded to teach everyone that they must ENTER, RETURN OR STAY within the unity and bosom of the Catholic Church, be subject to the Pope and have one Baptism of Water for the Forgiveness of sins. Even if we were standing next to a person who unknown to us or him/her were going to shed their blood for Jesus next week, they too would need be taught this truth and this formula alone for Salvation. The conditions of holiness that the Church describes as absolutely necessary allude your comprehension, Lionel. That is not a problem but you have made it a problem by concocting and using these misunderstandings to come up with your own private interpretation. You were chosen to fight a much larger battle in this life but you must be able to first accept what the Church teaches and then you can move on to your mission and purpose on earth. That mission specifically is to attack the sin and NOT the sinner. The Church stands today in crisis and either the Church, Ark of Salvation will return to devout and true Catechesis or Jesus will return.

and so we pray,

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:48 pm

Mike,


I don’t have a lot of time, but I scanned the Father Hardon article (which I’ve seen before - good article) through his summary up to St. Thomas, where he then says:

"Here we see a further clarification of the traditional belief of non-Catholics can be saved . ..





How does he get that from this (or what preceded from Ambrose, Augustine etc. ? - 


If explicit faith in certain truths revealed by God is absolutely necessary, how can the pagan be saved? Thomas answers that “divine providence will provide whatever such a person needs for salvation, as long as he places no obstacles in the way. If a man of that kind followed the dictates of natural reason in doing good and avoiding evil, it is certain that God would either reveal by internal inspiration what he has to believe, or send someone to preach the faith to him.


I fail to see how these people don’t end up with the faith of the sacrament or how, if they are to be saved, they are “non-Catholic.” 

Of course, there may be further clarification a la Pius IX etc. which is discussed in the article (which I will return to with time), but up until that point I fail to see how the tradition cited by Father Hardon supports “non-Catholics can be saved.” Perhaps he simply means, not formal Catholics who have entered by water baptism, but I, for one, would consider anyone dying with saving faith and charity a fellow Catholic. 

And I apologize for any fount issues above. One notable problem I am having is, “how do you put quotes in those quote boxes? That’s why I’m changing colors to highlight quotes. 

I am very rusty at this. Or has the formatting bar changed? I seem to remember a symbol with quotation marks and you could simply highlight an text and put it in a quote box by hitting the symbol.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:03 pm

Mike,


But note what St. Thomas is actually saying: “When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not because of unbelief", meaning not every “unbeliever” (of the divine and Catholic faith) is necessarily damned (the saved will come to possess a supernatural faith vivified by charity), but when such unbelievers are damned, they are not dammed for the sin of unbelief. 

This is the same St. Thomas, btw, (and as you know) who taught that the inculpably ignorant child in the woods who comes of age must make a decision for or against God the Creator, as he understands it, and that a state of grace (a state of salvation) is possible without an explicit faith in Jesus Christ. That St. Thomas also believed that God would provide each of His elect with the essential truth of the Incarnate Son as Redeemer does not change this fact, and, as we know, “Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Council of Trent, VI/VI), which was also the common opinion of the Fathers of VCI who held that an implicit faith in Jesus would suffice when it was contained within an explicit supernatural faith in God.

Ah . . . I think I figured it out. Simply hit quote cloud and then the insert button. That’s a bit different than it used to be I think. 

Come on, Mike, how do you get “meaning that not every unbeliever is necessarily damned”? It means no such thing. It simply means, no one is damned for not believing the Catholic faith.” The question whether someone can be saved without believing it is not addressed. 

One is only saved by application of the merits of the Blood of Christ (Trent). I don’t see good old Pius IX, or St. Thomas, saying those merits can be applied without explicit faith in Christ. Where?

I know we touched on that other passage from St. Thomas before. Could you cite it again for me. I believe we discussed that with “Lud,” but . . . finding it? Talk about good grief. Smile

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:20 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I don’t have a lot of time, but I scanned the Father Hardon article (which I’ve seen before - good article) through his summary up to St. Thomas, where he then says:

"Here we see a further clarification of the traditional belief of non-Catholics can be saved . ..

How does he get that from this (or what preceded from Ambrose, Augustine etc. ? - 

If explicit faith in certain truths revealed by God is absolutely necessary, how can the pagan be saved? Thomas answers that “divine providence will provide whatever such a person needs for salvation, as long as he places no obstacles in the way. If a man of that kind followed the dictates of natural reason in doing good and avoiding evil, it is certain that God would either reveal by internal inspiration what he has to believe, or send someone to preach the faith to him.

I fail to see how these people don’t end up with the faith of the sacrament or how, if they are to be saved, they are “non-Catholic.” 
Actually, they do end up with the faith of the sacrament (by internal inspiration); but objectively, they may appear to die without Faith, and to die without formal incorporation.

Said another way, subjectively, they would be united to Christ and His Body by the bonds of faith and charity; objectively, they may appear to die outside the Church.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:35 pm

Mike,

Sure. Objectively they would not appear to be so united. As to their subjective union, I believe it is not without explicit faith in Christ - by internal inspiration of God. 

Remember this?


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."


Now, I believe in our arguments about this that you said Pope Eugene was not saying that there were such people, but that if someone died with original sin alone, they’d end up in Hell. I want to be accurate: that is your position, right? 


So, if the Church can in an infallible declaration assert a truth that could de facto be a “null set,” - assuming that perhaps all infants who die without baptism manage somehow to be redeemed (the Church says we can “hope” for that, right?) - my position is not a stretch in saying that Pius IX, below (by way of Father Hardon’s article), is simply asserting a truth that, de facto, is a “null set”:



Nine years later, during the wars of unification, Pius IX issued a strong appeal to the bishops of Italy for a more concerted effort to stem the tide of immorality and indifference that was sweeping over the peninsula. “I must reprove a most serious error into which some Catholics have fallen,” he warned. “They imagine that men living in errors and apart from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain to eternal life.” They cannot. “It is known to us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts, which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life can, through the workings of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. The reason is because God, who clearly sees, searches and knows the mind, intentions, thoughts and habits of all, will, by His supreme goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings.” On the other hand, “those who are contumacious against the Church, and who are pertinaciously divided from the unity of that Church and from Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.”



http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm

What Pius IX said is absolutely true: no one without the Catholic faith or explicit faith  who does not commit mortal sin ends up in the Hell of eternal torment - but there is no such person - just as Pope Eugene is right that anyone who dies with the stain of original sin ends up in Hell, even if there might not be any such person. 

Thoughts?

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:37 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:1. Yes, Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church (with faith and baptism), [we are in agreement] but she also teaches that God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end (salvation). Nowhere does VCII suggest that formal external membership is intrinsic to salvation, and clearly teaches otherwise.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not bound to the Sacraments. Vatican Council II?
Yes, it is strongly implied in several passages within Lumen Gentium, here, for example:

"Catechumens [who are by definition among the non-Baptized] who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention joined to her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own."
This is the same teaching found in the Catechisms of Trent and the CCC. Note the assumption by the Church of right intention, faith and charity, without knowing with certainty that the catechumen is in a state of grace, just as she cannot know with certainty if any baptized adult is in a state of grace.

The point is, VCII clearly teaches that a catechumen may be “joined” to the Church without yet being an actual formal member (external incorporation).

Furthermore, as Father Thomas Joseph White, OP, in his article Who Will Be Saved? The Council and the Question of Salvation, confirms the above:

…God’s grace does work outside of the sacraments in many cases. For Catholic Christians this can occur when they are deprived of the sacraments through no fault of their own, or when they pray for grace outside the sacraments, even while also regularly receiving them. Likewise, a catechumen who dies without baptism can be saved from the “desire for baptism.” Outside the Catholic Church, those who are in invincible ignorance regarding the nature of the Church and the sacraments can still receive the offer of salvation. This was an explicit teaching of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, and it has clear precedents in the teaching of 13th century scholastic theologians like Aquinas.

Lumen Gentium 15-16 presents this idea in a complex and nuanced way. (We find complementary teachings in Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate.) Notice the emphasis on the conditional. The Eastern Orthodox Churches can communicate life in the grace of Christ, a grace that tends implicitly toward plenary communion with the Roman Church. Protestant Christians might live in a state of grace (with charity in their hearts) based upon their baptismal life in Christ, and his forgiveness of their sins, but they face potential setbacks due to problematic beliefs and seriously erroneous moral practices.  It is possible for the grace of God to be at work among those who believe in the one God (Jews or Muslims), and also in those who, through other religious traditions, “in shadows and images seek the unknown God.” Grace may even be at work in the hearts of those who do not believe in God.
And you seem to want to ignore all this when you say:

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
Lionel, you know perfectly well that VCII says no such thing when it clearly stipulates that a conditional path to salvation may be open to them. Continuing with the article by Fr. White:

Nevertheless, the text goes on to say that we should not be presumptuous: “often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature,’ (Mk. 16:16) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention” (Lumen Gentium, 16). http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2734/Who_Will_Be_Saved_The_Council_and_the_Question_of_Salvation.aspx?refresh=1#.Uo5rqMTryHQ
Moving on.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
”Mryan” wrote:
2. Lionel wrote: "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith". Actually, we do know of several saints martyred in the baptism of blood without benefit of the sacrament of baptism. That the Church includes these narratives in her liturgical texts is proof enough that she holds the baptism of blood as a true doctrine.
In the future?
Of course not, though we may presume so, just as we cannot know with any certainty those adults who will be saved in the future by water baptism, though we may presume so. So what is the point?

Lionel Andrades wrote:Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are known to us personally or that they will be saved without the baptism of water in future? These are the two important points for there to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Do any of the Church’s salvation dogmas say that these cases of salvation for baptized adults are known to us personally, or that they will be saved [known cases] with the baptism of water in future?

Don’t you see, Lionel, the inherent fallacy at work in your question? The Church, it is true, does not know of any means other than the sacraments that can assure salvation, provided the right dispositions are present (a state of grace), without being able to tell us WHO these adults are (short of canonization). She can tell who the baptized are, but not that they are in fact saved. She can tell us who the catechumens are, and claim them as her own, but she insists that the obligation to be baptized remains, and she makes no claim to the certainty of salvation either before or after baptism (in adults).

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:3. And the fact that "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know [in the present] or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith" is entirely irrelevant,
Yes. Since the issue is, 'Are there exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?' There are none.
Properly understood, there are no exceptions, we can agree. However, your understanding of “the traditional interpretation” is a private opinion binding on no one but yourself, as the following example will demonstrate:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, 1442:

“The holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Your “traditional interpretation” would have us believe that Pope Eugene IV’s definition positively excludes the martyred faith-filled catechumen from salvation. Remember “no exceptions”.

But the baptisms of desire and bold are not “exceptions” to the dogmatic necessity of Baptism, they are integral components of the same dogma. They are only “exceptions” to the precept or law of Baptism (but not to “the law of grace” - Trent, 6/4) which obliges all men without exception. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained, the end, for fruit of Baptism, may be realized by other means (baptism of blood/baptism of desire), neither of which destroys the unity of Baptism.  

Not only does the Roman Martyrology prove your "traditional  interpretation" wrong, the Council of Florence (Basel) also declared that:

the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Session 22—15 October 1435)
Again, the Church, in her universal ordinary teaching, accepts and embraces the true understanding of the baptisms of blood and desire, as they are intrinsically related to Baptism, as this doctrine is “commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools” for centuries on end – and there is NO disagreement among them or the Church with respect to the essentials of the doctrine. In fact, as I told flatterme, Pope Pius XII must not have gotten the dogmatic memo containing the “traditional interpretation” of the dogma of Eugene IV, for, in his Allocution to midwives, he wrote:

Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible [the "law of grace"]. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism [the "law of baptism"];... ”
Now, be truthful, Lionel, do you really believe that Pope Eugene IV intended to jettison the universal teaching represented by the "sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters”, the matters of the baptisms of blood and desire, to include the writings of such “holy doctors” as St. Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings on these matters were accepted and embraced “according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

Seriously?

I’ll leave it there for now.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:00 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,
Sure. Objectively they would not appear to be so united. As to their subjective union, I believe it is not without explicit faith in Christ - by internal inspiration of God.
Yes, I agree, but the Church has not defined the dogma as such, and leaves the question open.

tornpage wrote:Remember this?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."
Now, I believe in our arguments about this that you said Pope Eugene was not saying that there were such people, but that if someone died with original sin alone, they’d end up in Hell. I want to be accurate: that is your position, right?
At the risk of you finding some citation of mine to the contrary Crying or Very sad,  let me clarify what I think. First of all, it may be beyond credulity to suggest that “original sin alone” can apply to adults, for, upon further reflection, I don’t think God would allow an adult to die in original sin alone without giving him the opportunity of faith/belief. So, if he is damned, it is not for original sin alone, but for the sin of unbelief (faith offered, and rejected). This would be consistent with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

So, I believe when Pope Eugene IV said “those who depart this life … in original sin alone” he was referring to infants. Now, I also believe he was using “punishments of different kinds” only in an analogous sense, for the doctrine of the Limbo of the Children was already well established.

This Limbo is commonly held to be located at the outer edges of hell (though BXVI said it was at the edge of heaven). The common opinion holds that the children do not suffer in the least, and enjoy a state of eternal natural beatitude (happiness). To repeat what I said in another thread, they are not being “punished”, for they are guilty of no personal sin. As the Fathers said, they deserve neither heaven nor hell.

When the Fathers and even Trent spoke of the generational “crime” of original sin; again, it was only an analogous sense. We do indeed inherit the “penalty” that comes with original sin, to include the loss of bodily integrity, concupiscence and death, and the Limbo of the children is a form of that same “penalty”, but, I will insist, it is not a “punishment” in any true sense of the word.

Even if Eugene IV believed that unbaptized infants undergo a mild sense suffering (spiritual and/or physical), his belief, if such was the case, does not form a part of Catholic dogma.  

Sorry, I may have overstated the case, but I wanted to flesh this out since I haven’t thought about it in a long time, and our last go around left us with some unanswered questions (thanks in part to my fuzzy thinking!). But, on to your main point:    

tornpage wrote: So, if the Church can in an infallible declaration assert a truth that could de facto be a “null set,” - assuming that perhaps all infants who die without baptism manage somehow to be redeemed (the Church says we can “hope” for that, right?) - my position is not a stretch in saying that Pius IX, below (by way of Father Hardon’s article), is simply asserting a truth that, de facto, is a “null set”:
IF infants who die without benefit of the sacrament are saved by God by a means unknown to the Church, then yes, the stain of original sin is removed, and there are no unbaptized infants in Limbo, for Limbo would not actually exist -- unless (even more sheer speculation), God allows some percentage of infants the opportunity to choose eternal beatitude, based on some level of justice and mercy known only to Himself. His way are not our ways.

tornpage wrote:
Nine years later, during the wars of unification, Pius IX issued a strong appeal to the bishops of Italy for a more concerted effort to stem the tide of immorality and indifference that was sweeping over the peninsula. “I must reprove a most serious error into which some Catholics have fallen,” he warned. “They imagine that men living in errors and apart from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain to eternal life.” They cannot. “It is known to us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts, which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life can, through the workings of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. The reason is because God, who clearly sees, searches and knows the mind, intentions, thoughts and habits of all, will, by His supreme goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings.” On the other hand, “those who are contumacious against the Church, and who are pertinaciously divided from the unity of that Church and from Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.”
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm

What Pius IX said is absolutely true: no one without the Catholic faith or explicit faith who does not commit mortal sin ends up in the Hell of eternal torment - but there is no such person - just as Pope Eugene is right that anyone who dies with the stain of original sin ends up in Hell, even if there might not be any such person.

Thoughts?
I think I said enough?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:12 pm

MRyan wrote: The Church, it is true, does not know of any means other than the sacraments that can assure salvation, provided the right dispositions are present (a state of grace), without being able to tell us WHO these adults are (short of canonization).
But, the Church also assures us, provided the required dispositions are present, the baptisms of blood and desire are truly efficacious towards salvation, for, as I  already mentioned, they are intrinsically linked to the sacrament (per St. Thomas Aquinas).

Just thought I'd clarify.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:23 pm

tornpage wrote:
Ah . . . I think I figured it out. Simply hit quote cloud and then the insert button. That’s a bit different than it used to be I think. 
Yeah, that threw me too!

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:44 pm

MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote: The Church, it is true, does not know of any means other than the sacraments that can assure salvation, provided the right dispositions are present (a state of grace), without being able to tell us WHO these adults are (short of canonization).
But, the Church also assures us, provided the required dispositions are present, the baptisms of blood and desire are truly efficacious towards salvation, for, as I  already mentioned, they are intrinsically linked to the sacrament (per St. Thomas Aquinas).

Just thought I'd clarify.

Mike,

Yes, Pope Eugene was referring to infants, and/or the mentally incompetent.

Thanks for your thoughts on that again. But here’s my point vis a vis Pius IX: if, as the Church hopes, God somehow applies the merits of Christ to them without water baptism or an act of faith/love - and let’s assume he does that for the mentally incompetent as well - then there are no souls who go to hell with merely the stain of original sin. So when Pope Eugene says, “those who die with the stain of original sin go to hell,” he could be describing a null set. The principle however remains true: anyone who died with that stain alone would go to hell. 

Using the possibility of Pope Eugene describing a true principle but perhaps a de facto null set, I say we have the same thing at play with Pius IX. He states a truth: God does not punish anyone with the torments of eternal hell without committing a mortal sin, and that, anyone who dies without committing a mortal sin would not go to hell. True, true. 

However, his true principle - and there is value in stating or affirming the principle, the goodness of justice of god,etc. - does not, or may not, apply in reality, just as Pope Eugene’s true principle may not apply in reality. 

So . .. just as Pope Eugene’s statement cannot and does not support or mean proposition that there are people in hell with only the stain of original sin - only that that’s where one would be if one died with that stain and that stain alone - Pius IX’s statement does not mean there are people in heaven who depart this life without committing mortal sin or without the Catholic faith. 

Both propositions lay boundaries of God’s economy and dispensation: original sin is is a condemnation inherited from Adam which is enough to damn one (a very important point in God’s economy, i.e shows the necessity of Christ’s work to redeem men from the inherited curse, etc.) , and God doesn’t damn one who doesn’t commit mortal sin (emphasized God’s justice and goodness,etc). 

Both sets could in fact be “null.” 

So I am simply saying, based on the precedent of a reading of Pope Eugene’s authoritative statement as it could - and perhaps many - read it, Pius IX’s statement does not mean their are those saved without the Catholic faith no more than Pope Eugene’s statement means there are those in hell with only original sin. 

Btw, was I accurate in your reading of Pope Eugene’s statement? If you recall, I affirmed that it wasn’t a “null set,” while you maintained it could be. On your understanding, I posit the same regarding Pius IX’s statement . . . which the liberals love to run with, probably many who also hold Pope Eugene’s statement of principle to be describing a null set. 

But of course they don’t follow the reasoning that way, but fill heaven with all kinds of non-Catholics, pagans, good will Jews, Muslims . . . Pope Pius’s set is not “null,” but full to the brim according to them. Smile

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:04 pm

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:Mike,
Sure. Objectively they would not appear to be so united. As to their subjective union, I believe it is not without explicit faith in Christ - by internal inspiration of God.
Yes, I agree, but the Church has not defined the dogma as such, and leaves the question open. 

I’ll have to agree with that (not defined), since many of the hierarchy - and I’m thinking mainly of Father Hardon’s discussion of some the doings at Vatican I - apparently would disagree with my belief. But I read things like the Athanasian creed, and understand the teaching of the Church, Aquinas, Augstine, differently. And will wait for a definitive judgment, if one ever comes. 

Perhaps I’m merely making a technical point, and simply don’t like having Pius IX’s statement being read broader than it needs to be, and, so to speak, shoved down our throats by the liberals and ecumaniacs.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:10 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote: The Church, it is true, does not know of any means other than the sacraments that can assure salvation, provided the right dispositions are present (a state of grace), without being able to tell us WHO these adults are (short of canonization).
But, the Church also assures us, provided the required dispositions are present, the baptisms of blood and desire are truly efficacious towards salvation, for, as I  already mentioned, they are intrinsically linked to the sacrament (per St. Thomas Aquinas).

Just thought I'd clarify.

Mike,

Yes, Pope Eugene was referring to infants, and/or the mentally incompetent.

Thanks for your thoughts on that again. But here’s my point vis a vis Pius IX: if, as the Church hopes, God somehow applies the merits of Christ to them without water baptism or an act of faith/love - and let’s assume he does that for the mentally incompetent as well - then there are no souls who go to hell with merely the stain of original sin. So when Pope Eugene says, “those who die with the stain of original sin go to hell,” he could be describing a null set. The principle however remains true: anyone who died with that stain alone would go to hell. 

Using the possibility of Pope Eugene describing a true principle but perhaps a de facto null set, I say we have the same thing at play with Pius IX. He states a truth: God does not punish anyone with the torments of eternal hell without committing a mortal sin, and that, anyone who dies without committing a mortal sin would not go to hell. True, true. 

However, his true principle - and there is value in stating or affirming the principle, the goodness of justice of god,etc. - does not, or may not, apply in reality, just as Pope Eugene’s true principle may not apply in reality. 

So . .. just as Pope Eugene’s statement cannot and does not support or mean proposition that there are people in hell with only the stain of original sin - only that that’s where one would be if one died with that stain and that stain alone - Pius IX’s statement does not mean there are people in heaven who depart this life without committing mortal sin or without the Catholic faith. 

Both propositions lay boundaries of God’s economy and dispensation: original sin is is a condemnation inherited from Adam which is enough to damn one (a very important point in God’s economy, i.e shows the necessity of Christ’s work to redeem men from the inherited curse, etc.) , and God doesn’t damn one who doesn’t commit mortal sin (emphasized God’s justice and goodness,etc). 

Both sets could in fact be “null.” 

So I am simply saying, based on the precedent of a reading of Pope Eugene’s authoritative statement as it could - and perhaps many - read it, Pius IX’s statement does not mean their are those saved without the Catholic faith no more than Pope Eugene’s statement means there are those in hell with only original sin. 

Btw, was I accurate in your reading of Pope Eugene’s statement? If you recall, I affirmed that it wasn’t a “null set,” while you maintained it could be. On your understanding, I posit the same regarding Pius IX’s statement . . . which the liberals love to run with, probably many who also hold Pope Eugene’s statement of principle to be describing a null set. 

But of course they don’t follow the reasoning that way, but fill heaven with all kinds of non-Catholics, pagans, good will Jews, Muslims . . . Pope Pius’s set is not “null,” but full to the brim according to them. Smile
 I quoted Mike’s last post when this was a response to his other, lengthy one. 

That’s not a technical glicth, that's tornpage sloppiness.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:33 pm

Tornpage wrote: I know we touched on that other passage from St. Thomas before. Could you cite it again for me. I believe we discussed that with “Lud,” but . . . finding it? Talk about good grief.  

I believe you may be referring to STL, II/II, Q1. a7

I answer that, The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). On like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Hebrews 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.

Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.

Now, I would argue, that while it is true that knowledge of the articles of faith has increased in the course of time, that same knowledge is not necessarily available to everyone. Therefore, the principles governing implicit faith under the old dispensation are valid, under specific circumstances, still today.

But I also agree with St. Thomas when he argues why an explicit faith in Jesus is necessary in the new dispensation, though the Church has, as we both agree, left this question open. The problem is, (we both agree), the liberals have driven a bulldozer through this narrow speculative opening rendering the dogma practically meaningless.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:38 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:Mike,
Sure. Objectively they would not appear to be so united. As to their subjective union, I believe it is not without explicit faith in Christ - by internal inspiration of God.
Yes, I agree, but the Church has not defined the dogma as such, and leaves the question open. 

I’ll have to agree with that (not defined), since many of the hierarchy - and I’m thinking mainly of Father Hardon’s discussion of some the doings at Vatican I - apparently would disagree with my belief. But I read things like the Athanasian creed, and understand the teaching of the Church, Aquinas, Augstine, differently. And will wait for a definitive judgment, if one ever comes. 

Perhaps I’m merely making a technical point, and simply don’t like having Pius IX’s statement being read broader than it needs to be, and, so to speak, shoved down our throats by the liberals and ecumaniacs.

I'm with ya!

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:00 am

March 3, 2015
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

So it is the same passage and we have interpreted it differently

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:28 am

So it is the same passage and we have interpreted it differently. You have used an irrational premise and I have avoided it.

MRyan wrote:1. Yes, Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church (with faith and baptism), [we are in agreement] but she also teaches that God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end (salvation). Nowhere does VCII suggest that formal external membership is intrinsic to salvation, and clearly teaches otherwise

Lionel:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not bound to the Sacraments. Vatican Council II?

MRyan:Yes, it is strongly implied in several passages within Lumen Gentium, here, for example:

"Catechumens [who are by definition among the non-Baptized] who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention joined to her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own."

Lionel:
Since you assume that these Catechumens are known in the present times and they are in Heaven without the baptism of water, it is you who imply that this is an exception to the dogma.

For me these Catechumens are not known in 2015 and they are not exceptions to the dogma.This is a reference to a hypothetical case.

So it is the same passage and we have interpreted it differently. You have used an irrational premise and I have avoided it.

So there was a choice.

_____________________________________________


This is the same teaching found in the Catechisms of Trent and the CCC.

Lionel:
The Council of Trent only refers to 'the desire thereof'. It does not state that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.
You infer that these cases are known to us in the present times and so are exceptions to the dogma. I do not infer this.


____________________________________


Note the assumption by the Church of right intention, faith and charity, without knowing with certainty that the catechumen is in a state of grace, just as she cannot know with certainty if any baptized adult is in a state of grace.

Lionel:
Yes but this is a hypothetical case for me. So it is not an explicit exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
For you it is an exception. So you imply it is a defacto, explicit case, known personally in 2015 . Otherwise how could it be an exception?


___________________________________

The point is, VCII clearly teaches that a catechumen may be “joined” to the Church without yet being an actual formal member (external incorporation).

Lionel:
It is not there in the text in the passage you quoted above.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:30 am

I do not believe that those 21 Coptic Christians who were beheaded by ISIS died with a moral certitude of eternal salvation, even though they all, allegedly, died while professing the name of Jesus Christ "on their lips." While I hope that they find their way to Heaven, I think that Pope Eugene IV's words, nonetheless, speak for themselves.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Father Thomas Joseph White, OP

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:49 am



I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion



Furthermore, as Father Thomas Joseph White, OP, in his article Who Will Be Saved? The Council and the Question of Salvation, confirms the above:

…God’s grace does work outside of the sacraments in many cases. For Catholic Christians this can occur when they are deprived of the sacraments through no fault of their own, or when they pray for grace outside the sacraments, even while also regularly receiving them.

Lionel: God's grace can occur outside the Church but there is no known case of someone saved outside the Church.So there are no known cases of persons being exceptions to the dogmatic teaching, the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation:

_______________________________

Likewise, a catechumen who dies without baptism can be saved from the “desire for baptism.” Outside the Catholic Church, those who are in invincible ignorance regarding the nature of the Church and the sacraments can still receive the offer of salvation.

Lionel:Yes they can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water. They would still not be known to us in 2015. So they would not be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
_________________________________

This was an explicit teaching of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, and it has clear precedents in the teaching of 13th century scholastic theologians like Aquinas.

Lionel:That there are known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma is a new doctrine which has come to us from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It has not precedent before 1949.

The Letter issued by Cardinal Marchetti assumed that these cases were 1) known and visible in the present times even though they are in Heaven and so 2) were explicit exceptions on earth  to the strict interpretation of the dogma.


______________________________________

Lumen Gentium 15-16 presents this idea in a complex and nuanced way. (We find complementary teachings in Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate.) Notice the emphasis on the conditional. The Eastern Orthodox Churches can communicate life in the grace of Christ, a grace that tends implicitly toward plenary communion with the Roman Church.

Lionel:
This can be implied based only on Marchetti's premse.


_______________________________________


Protestant Christians might live in a state of grace (with charity in their hearts) based upon their baptismal life in Christ, and his forgiveness of their sins, but they face potential setbacks due to problematic beliefs and seriously erroneous moral practices. It is possible for the grace of God to be at work among those who believe in the one God (Jews or Muslims), and also in those who, through other religious traditions, “in shadows and images seek the unknown God.” Grace may even be at work in the hearts of those who do not believe in God.

Lionel:He can choose to infer all this based on the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office. The text in Vatican Council II does not make this claim.

I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion
.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:57 am

Lionel,

What follows is what I believe is called tough love or stick a fork in yourself for you are done; said in love and charity.

Lionel said:" Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it "

Positively correctly reformulated would say ..... Lionel made a mistake in 2015 and Father John Hardon would have noticed it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lionel said: "I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion."

Yes you can and do and this is called private interpretation which is forbidden by the Church

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lionel said: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not bound to the Sacraments. Vatican Council II?

What is with your question mark? You certainly must know that the catechism is from VCII. The Imprimi Potest is Pope Benedict XVI, then as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. A commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work.
SAINT John Paul II had the following to say in the Catechism on it's publication. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes."

signed in the Catechism, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDIE DEPOSITIUM on the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lionel said: "Yes they(catechumen) can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.

There you go again contradicting VCII , the catechism and all the past centuries. You are having a debate with yourself. On more than one occasion you have admitted that God is NOT bound to the sacraments once on your own website and recently to me when discussing Baptism of desire when you said "Yes he (my example to you) was possibly saved with the baptism of desire and in the manner in which God chose. This could also be with the baptism of water.

YES YES YES , my friend that last sentence IS Church teaching ....Did you have a relapse?


In Christ,

George






George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:35 pm


Contemplation of Salvation through Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and the sanctity required of someone that is invincibly Ignorant is Church teaching whereby we recognize, accept and are in awe of the possibilities placed before God for his Judgment. Time spent on them should be an intermission, pause or interlude in one's Catholic life and we must be extremely careful in our quest in attempting to grasp or Heaven forbid, council God's will. Countless Catholics have more than likely gone to Heaven who never even considered these conditions but spent their spiritual time at Mass, devotions, rosaries, novena's, and doing the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. I suggest to most importantly myself that time spent on these possible states of holiness could endanger or diminish our Catholic faith which otherwise would be more pleasing to God. We would be better off if we just accepted that these conditions may in the course of history find their souls before God for His judgment.

We do know that a catechumen can go to hell. We know someone who sheds their Blood for their God can go to hell. We know that those who are slaughtered by isis can go to either Heaven, Purgatory or hell.
But the beauty of the one truth catholic faith is that we do know both on Earth and in Heaven that a Catholic who dies in a state of grace and free from mortal sin WILL go to Heaven.

That is why we are instructed and commanded to teach the Catholic surety of Salvation to the world. It is most helpful in attaining holiness to clothe the naked but it supernaturally holy to clothe the soul by teaching all the truth that by being Catholic and having one Baptism of water they WILL be saved by persevering in a state of grace. We have our marching orders that are repeatedly given to us throughout the centuries. We must obey but of a much higher calling we should love to obey what follows:

" but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic
teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry".
POPE PIUS IX




George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:45 pm

Jehanne wrote:I do not believe that those 21 Coptic Christians who were beheaded by ISIS died with a moral certitude of eternal salvation, even though they all, allegedly, died while professing the name of Jesus Christ "on their lips."  While I hope that they find their way to Heaven, I think that Pope Eugene IV's words, nonetheless, speak for themselves.
Jehanne, I agree. We can pray that God forgives their ignorance about the true faith, but we should avoid instant canonizations. Objectively, they died outside the one Ark of salvation, but God is a God of mercies, and we can certainly pray that they found their way home as they met their violent end with the name of Jesus on their lips.

Where there is more love, more is forgiven.

Love is impossible when error is obstinate and pertinacious.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:39 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:March 3, 2015
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

Really, I’ve read both, and can’t see where Fr. Hardon did not notice the alleged "mistake" in the 1949 Holy Office Letter, probably because I could not find the “mistake”.

Let’s see if you can find it for me. One response at a time.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Letter of the Holy Office 1949: These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Mystici Corporis does not state that those who are united only by desire are personally known to us and so are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It only mentions these cases are possibilities. It does not state also that these possibilities could not also receive the baptism of water. This sadly has all been inferred by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
Category error. The question before us pertains to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - meaning, a question of SALVATION, and the conditions necessary to attain this end.

So where does the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus state that those [adults] SAVED by the laver of regeneration are or must be “personally known to us”, when we do not know the interior sanctity of any man, baptized or not? We only know that their salvation is certain IF they persevere in grace. But, seeing that we cannot "see" their souls, we can only say that their salvation is "possible" and conditional, the same with the faith-filled Catechumen the Church considers as one of her own, but not formally so.  

I've asked you this question before, and all you do is repeat the same fallacy. Now please answer the actual question, or tell me which premise behind it is wrong - and prove it.

This time, I'm holding your feet to the fire.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

This is irrational. Even a non Catholic would realize it.

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:51 am

MRyan:
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1273-vatican-council-ii-interpreted-without-the-irrational-premise-the-sspx-could-affirm-this#9742


Lionel:
This is irrational. Even a non Catholic would realize it.Yet this is what is inferred when it is assumed there are exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/this-is-irrational-even-non-catholic.html

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood ?

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:16 am

MRyan:
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1273-vatican-council-ii-interpreted-without-the-irrational-premise-the-sspx-could-affirm-this#9742

Lionel:
How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) and without the baptism of water in future or this year?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/how-can-you-presume-to-know-who-will-be.html

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:56 am

MRyan:
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1273-vatican-council-ii-interpreted-without-the-irrational-premise-the-sspx-could-affirm-this#9758


The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:11 am

MRyan wrote:
Tornpage wrote: I know we touched on that other passage from St. Thomas before. Could you cite it again for me. I believe we discussed that with “Lud,” but . . . finding it? Talk about good grief.  

I believe you may be referring to STL, II/II, Q1. a7

I answer that, The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). On like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Hebrews 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.

Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.

Now, I would argue, that while it is true that knowledge of the articles of faith has increased in the course of time, that same knowledge is not necessarily available to everyone. Therefore, the principles governing implicit faith under the old dispensation are valid, under specific circumstances, still today.

But I also agree with St. Thomas when he argues why an explicit faith in Jesus is necessary in the new dispensation, though the Church has, as we both agree, left this question open. The problem is, (we both agree), the liberals have driven a bulldozer through this narrow speculative opening rendering the dogma practically meaningless.

Mike,

That’s a good article, and timely put forth in light of the discussion, but I was thinking of something else - where a person, when they hit the age reason, must make a moral decision or choice, and that the right choice in such circumstances results in grace that is salvific - apart from explicit faith in Christ, or the Trinity. Such anyway is the argument - based on a certain passage of St. Thomas, which I’m looking for. 

Again, I recall you and I discussing with Lud, or maybe it was on Lud’s site and you cited it and just you and I discussed it. 

I just wanted to look at that passage of St. Thomas again. 

Thanks.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Tornpage,

Ah, of course, here you go:

http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/st-thomas-aquinas-on-salvation-by.html

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:25 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:MRyan:
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1273-vatican-council-ii-interpreted-without-the-irrational-premise-the-sspx-could-affirm-this#9742

Lionel:
How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood (martrydom) and without the baptism of water in future or this year?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/how-can-you-presume-to-know-who-will-be.html
Once again, Lionel, you simply ignore the arguments and ask a non-sequitur, for I have asked you the same thing, to wit, how can you presume to know of any baptized Catholic who WILL be saved in future or this year?  

You can't, you simply assume that only those members of the Church that you personally know, or know of, who have fulfilled the external requirements of Church membership have the possibility of salvation, meaning of course that you hold that the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not extend to the known martyr who is killed professing the true faith before he can receive water baptism.

And here those silly Doctors and saints teach that the baptism of blood is even more efficacious than water baptism (as if something more than perfect charity is required for unity with our Lord - condemned). Ah, but you would call this an "exception" to the dogma as if the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is subject and limited to your narrow private interpretation.

Neither have you offered a response when the example above is the good-faith catechumen, about whom, as the Church teaches, is already joined to the Church (through the bonds of faith and charity), though not yet formally. Do you see the premise at work? You should. The premise is that the good-faith catechumen's faith can be known, and that his desire and zeal for entry into the Church translates into the requisite charity that binds him to our Lord (and His Body), even if no one can know with absolute certainty if the catechumen is in a state of grace (ditto the baptized adult).

You appear to hold that the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not apply to him, and thus, he cannot be saved without water baptism even is he is martyred for his faith, and that IF he is saved, this is an "exception" to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

You like to have it both ways, don't you? Is there another dogma, apart from Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, by which men can be saved?

Would that be the same separate but salvific dogma Trent identifies as "the law if grace" (session VI, Ch. 4), the same dogma referred to by Pope Pius XII who declared that:

Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism

If, as Pope Pius XII and the entire Church teaches, men can be saved in such a way, what dogma of salvation does this fall under?  

Or, as you told the D. Bro's, this is "heresy"?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:02 pm

Being on this forum for over 4 years now, Mike, I can say that your arguments are absolutely immutable.  The theological opinions expressed by Father Feeney in his The Bread of Life are at least erroneous with respect to the Faith.  Still, Mike, your position is basically that of the SSPX, which accepts baptism of desire/baptism of blood but which rejects false ecumenism:

http://sspx.org/en/what-is-ecumenism

Of course, the post-Vatican II Church accepts such:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/reunion-not-a-return-to-rome-on-catholic-orthodox-ecumenism

As does Francis:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/pope-francis-doesnt-want-to-convert-evangelicals.html

Just plain rubbish, if not outright heresy.

This is the issue, Mike; Father Feeney was wrong on some things, but he got some things right.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:13 pm

MRyan wrote:

Would that be the same separate but salvific dogma Trent identifies as "the law if grace" (session VI, Ch. 4), the same dogma referred to by Pope Pius XII who declared that:

Should be "the law OF grace", as in "A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace".

Whether the baptized adult actually possesses the true faith and is in a state of grace is irrelevant to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, according to Lionel.

In summary, Lionel's dogma is actually quite simple, and goes like this: The dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus defines that no one can be saved without external/visible membership in the Catholic Church, and thus, external membership is the ONLY requirement for salvation that the dogma is addressing, since only these requirements can be "known".  Supernatural faith, hope and charity, and thus, sanctifying grace, are actually irrelevant to the dogma since, you guessed it, they cannot be "known" (in adults).
 
The faith-filled catechumen, according to Lionel, if he can be saved, would be an "exception" to the dogma, even if by martyrdom, since he is not an external member of the Church, and must be saved by another dogma having nothing to do with the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (as Lionel understands it and professes it on countless com boxes across the world).

Yes, that, in a nutshell, is Lionel's dogma.

Which begs the question: How can there be an "exception" to a dogma which allows of no exceptions?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:30 pm

Jehanne wrote:Being on this forum for over 4 years now, Mike, I can say that your arguments are absolutely immutable.  The theological opinions expressed by Father Feeney in his The Bread of Life are at least erroneous with respect to the Faith.  Still, Mike, your position is basically that of the SSPX, which accepts baptism of desire/baptism of blood but which rejects false ecumenism
Jehanne, perhaps, but I am uncomfortable with categorizing my "position" as the same as any one particular group, when it is really a position consistent with the ages and the magisterium. It my position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is nearly identical to that of the SSPX, and if I also find the excesses of ecumenism dangerous to the faith, fine, but I fail to see how this is entirely relevant.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:38 pm

And it gets even better. Here's what Lionel wrote to the D. bro's:

[…]You irrefutably proved your case that the arguments used by "baptism of desire" heretics, and others, which they cite from the Catechism of Trent, are "not even part of the official teaching of the Catechism to be passed along to the faithful".

Seriously. The blind leading the blind.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:54 am

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Being on this forum for over 4 years now, Mike, I can say that your arguments are absolutely immutable.  The theological opinions expressed by Father Feeney in his The Bread of Life are at least erroneous with respect to the Faith.  Still, Mike, your position is basically that of the SSPX, which accepts baptism of desire/baptism of blood but which rejects false ecumenism
Jehanne, perhaps, but I am uncomfortable with categorizing my "position" as the same as any one particular group, when it is really a position consistent with the ages and the magisterium. It my position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is nearly identical to that of the SSPX, and if I also find the excesses of ecumenism dangerous to the faith, fine, but I fail to see how this is entirely relevant.

That's the point, Mike; the SSPX is faithful to the One True Faith.  There are, in fact, individuals who, to a moral certitude, are outside of the One True Church and are, in fact, on their way to eternal Hell.  This concept, "moral certitude", is what Lionel is failing to grasp.  Non-Catholics, even if they are beheaded by ISIS while confessing the "name of Jesus" on their lips, end their lives without moral certitude of eternal salvation, as Cantate Domino makes it clear that it is at least possible for one to "pour out his blood for the Name of Christ" outside of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and yet such a sacrifice, "be as great as it may", will not result in that person being "saved".

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:57 am


With moral certitude and as taught by the Catholic Church objectively speaking we can and must teach, embrace and believe that ALL non Catholics over the age of reason are destined for hell. This has been and will be the teaching of the Church until the end of the earth. Subjectively speaking no one can stand over the grave of a non Catholic and declare that that person IS in hell. Our ability as Catholics to influence or for the non Catholic to be influenced and be receptive to God's graces ceases at their death. We can not and dare not proclaim that someone is in hell for we know not what God knows about them and their sanctity or lack thereof. This is why we must cling to teaching with absolute certainty that a person WILL go to Heaven if they are Catholic, baptized with water and die in a state of grace. On this issue alone is why we have a crisis in the Church. Very few in the Catholic church teach the faith with moral certainty. It is unlawful for us to do otherwise.

Singulari Quadam Pope Pius IX
" For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic
teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:25 am

George,

Well stated.  This is why The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Saint Pope 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."

Consider this:

The question of universalism—whether all will, in the end, be saved—is perennially agitated in the Christian tradition. A notable proponent of that view was the great Origen, who, in the third century, set forth a theologically and philosophically complex doctrine of “Apocatastasis” according to which all creatures, including the devil, will be saved. “Origenism”—which is not necessarily the same thing as Origen taught—has been condemned from time to time, with the Emperor Justinian trying, unsuccessfully, to get a total condemnation at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Among theologians and church historians, there has been something of a rediscovery and reappreciation of Origen in recent decades, helped along in significant part by the voluminous writings of Hans Urs von Balthasar. The universalism question came in for broader discussion with the publication of Balthasar’s little book Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? (1988). Balthasar’s is a very careful argument, clearly distinguishing between universal salvation as a hope and universal salvation as a doctrine. He supports the former and rejects the latter. In sum: we do not know; only God knows; but we may hope.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/08/will-all-be-saved

The above is flatly contradicted by the infallible teachings of the Syllabus of Errors:

Condemned Errors: wrote:15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:46 am


Don,


Whenever I bring up or show a priest the countless quotes from Saints, Doctors of the Church and others that have given specific and horrific accounts of the fewness of those that are saved and also detail the visions of hell as given to the children at Fatima along with many other accounts on the fact that hell is standing room only , do you know what I get? answer: crickets and deer in the headlight syndrome.

With advise from a Monsignor and helpful encouragement from a dear friend I have been in touch with some websites and individuals on what we need to do. Unless we get a Pope Pius XIII, we desperately need a SYLABBUS. Would you like to help, Don and either co sponsor or be a rep for your state for a pleading and petition to Cardinal Burke from the Church Militant?

As suggested to me:

• The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

• The Catholic Church is an external visible commonwealth.

• There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

• God desires that all men enter the Catholic Church.

• Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

• Souls who depart this life in the state of mortal sin suffer the torments of hell.

• A valid marriage is indissoluble.

• Adultery is a mortal sin.

• Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

• The Pope does not have the power to change doctrine or to introduce any novelty.

• The state has an obligation to recognize, support and promote the Catholic Church
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In love for our Catholic faith,

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:31 am

Excellent start, George!  You should involve the SSPX on this one.  I have only a few entries to add to the list:

The sin of sodomy, which is the voluntary sexual union between two or more persons of the same sex, is at all times and in all places a mortal sin.

The sin of fornication, which is the voluntary sexual union between one man and one woman, is at all times and in all places a mortal sin.

It is false to assert that reasonable hope exists for the salvation of all human beings.

It is false and heretical to assert that we need not bring sacramental Baptism to all human beings.

It is false and heretical to assert that invincible ignorance and/or theological errors is a source of actual and/or sanctifying grace.

It is false and heretical to assert that the teachings of the infallible ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be known with certainty.

It is false and heretical to assert that one may sometimes have voluntary sexual relations with another person who is not a sacramental spouse without mortal sin.

It is false and heretical to assert that one may have two or more sacramental spouses.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:36 am

MRyan wrote:Tornpage,

Ah, of course, here you go:

http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/st-thomas-aquinas-on-salvation-by.html

That be it. Thanks, Mike.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:06 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Being on this forum for over 4 years now, Mike, I can say that your arguments are absolutely immutable.  The theological opinions expressed by Father Feeney in his The Bread of Life are at least erroneous with respect to the Faith.  Still, Mike, your position is basically that of the SSPX, which accepts baptism of desire/baptism of blood but which rejects false ecumenism
Jehanne, perhaps, but I am uncomfortable with categorizing my "position" as the same as any one particular group, when it is really a position consistent with the ages and the magisterium. It my position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is nearly identical to that of the SSPX, and if I also find the excesses of ecumenism dangerous to the faith, fine, but I fail to see how this is entirely relevant.

That's the point, Mike; the SSPX is faithful to the One True Faith.  There are, in fact, individuals who, to a moral certitude, are outside of the One True Church and are, in fact, on their way to eternal Hell.  This concept, "moral certitude", is what Lionel is failing to grasp.  Non-Catholics, even if they are beheaded by ISIS while confessing the "name of Jesus" on their lips, end their lives without moral certitude of eternal salvation, as Cantate Domino makes it clear that it is at least possible for one to "pour out his blood for the Name of Christ" outside of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and yet such a sacrifice, "be as great as it may", will not result in that person being "saved".

Seems a bit too, ah, monolithic there Jehanne. 

Who is the SSPX? Father Laisney? Father Rulleau? Father Schmidberger? Father Peter Scott? Their “scholars” on baptism of desire, the Novus Ordo?

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:22 am

Jehanne,


You gave some very good additional points of concern for a syllabus. The final list will be diligently studied and agreed to by those at a much higher pay grade than me and determine if this effort is the will of God. As far as the SPPX they would highly benefit from a syllabus as would the entire Church in becoming united in truth. The SPPX is having internal issues on trying to keep all their clerics toe the line in demanding that the true teaching that was held for centuries remain intact. I will send you a personal note latter.

JMJ,

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:20 pm

MRyan wrote:
Lionel Andrades wrote:March 3, 2015
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

Really, I’ve read both, and can’t see where Fr. Hardon did not notice the alleged "mistake" in the 1949 Holy Office Letter, probably because I could not find the “mistake”.

. . . 

This time, I'm holding your feet to the fire.

Lionel,


Here you go:


However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:25 pm

tornpage wrote:Lionel,


Here you go:


However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

And, if there are such people who are reaching out to the One and Triune God, why does He not reach out to them, say, by providing them with the explicit knowledge of the Mysteries of the One True Faith?

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:18 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum