Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell?
#91
Good points. However it does not guarantee infallibility in those matters. Dogma teaches that for salvation all human beings are bound to submit to the Roman Pontiff. But we also know there are times when we may disobey the pope, all the while still recognizing him as the supreme pontiff. We are commanded to assent and fully submit to the Ordinary Magisterium. Yet we know from history that the Ordinary Magisterium can err even in matters of faith or morals. Pope John taught heresy concerning the beatific vision. The Ordinary Magesterium was inconsistent on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Roman Catechism(Catechism of Trent) erred on the issue of ensoulment, saying we did not have a soul till some time after conception and that we were just vegetative matter. This is contradicted by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which states the Blessed Virgin was free from Original Sin at the "moment" of her conception, not some time after as the Catechism declares. On the issue of abortion the pontiffs, at least since then, have been consistent in declaring that there is a soul at the moment of conception.

But don't take this the wrong way and think I advocating dissension to the Magisterium. We must trust the Church in all things, but men in the Church even popes can make mistakes even on matters of Faith and Morals. Trads, more than anyone, should understand this. The Ordinary Magisterium has at least tolerated if not promoted the theological position that once can be saved in certain circumstances without water baptism. If we look at the Extraordinary Magisterium, no such exceptions are mentioned and the documents only contradict the idea of exceptions to the necessity of Church membership and water baptism.

As a Catholic I am bound to believe EENS: No Salvation Outside the Church. The Church has also declared that membership is made only through water baptism. She also has declared, without contradicting herself, that grace and justification can precede the sacrament of baptism itself without receiving it in actuality. Many of taken this, including saints, to mean that if one died in between receiving justification and the sacrament itself they would merit salvation anyway. This is the most strictest definition of the so-called Baptism of Desire when it is seen as salvific. But again this is speculative. Despite catechisms and saints preaching it the Church ha snever infallibly declared that one can be saved without baptism.

Even theologian Ludwig Ott who believes and teaches BOD wrote in his "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" that The so-called Baptism by blood and Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacramental Baptism in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the Church , as they do not bestow the sacramental character by which a person becomes attached formally to the Church.”

So, he admits those that receive just the grace of baptism but not the sacrament itself aren't members of the Church. How then can they be saved? If this desire for baptism could replace the sacrament entirely then I would not personally object to it. However if it as he says does not make one a Catholic, then logically it is not enough to save one by itself.

Pope Pius XII affirms Ott on his conclusion:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

This Baptism of Desire theory has many holes in it and it's no wonder why everyone uses it to suit their own personal beliefs and agenda and why it endangers the doctrine of EENS.

So we have Ott saying it doesn't make one a member of the Church but it can still save even though the Church has said EENS. We see Archbishop Lefebvre making similar mistakes:

We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church, we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church; but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are not aware of it…” (From a sermon preached in 1976 at the First Mass of one of his newly ordained priests.)

The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error.


So Lefebvre says in the exact same statement "NO Salvation" and then "SOME Salvation." The contradictions are astounding.

But Trads condemn ecumenism because it does not tell people of the necessity of belonging to the Church. But why? The unofficial founder of the Traditionalist Movement says "There IS salvation outside the Church." But how could he say something like that? Because like so many, he was deceived by a theological opinion tolerated and promoted by the Magisterium which has basis in some of the writings of the Father sof the Church, and states that catechumens who had the Faith but were prevented from receiving baptism were assured of salvation(It should also be noted that not all Fathers taught this, St. Gregory Nazianzen explcitly condemned it as seen in my signature below. And Augustine and Amrbose who are most often quoted as proof of this belief, contradicted themselves, at one point saying catechumens are damned and others times they are saved).

But now we see that this BOD has lead even among the self-professed Modernist-hunting 'Trads" that people can be saved outside of the Church. And all because of this theological "loophole" called Baptism of Desire.

I also want to make one other thing prefectly clear. I do not believe baptism of desire in the strictest sense is heresy per se. The Church has never defined in either in the negative as heresy or affirmation as de fide. I also acknowledge the toleration of it by many saints and popes. You on the other hand should aslo acknowledge that the Church tolerates those that deny BOD, and has affirmed their status as full members of the Church-impossible if they hold heretical beliefs.

But that being said, I personally reject Baptism of Desire as salvific in place of water baptism. I don't insist others think as I do and have no qualms with people believing in BOD so long as they do not NOT reject EENS.

I just wanted you to see where I'm coming from. I don't mind debate but don't want a fight. I've done too much of that and it all leads to an occassion of sin as charity is soon forgotten. If you reply with counters to my arguments, don't be too suprised if I don't answer for a while or at all. This would not be an acknowledgment of your points. I've just done this alot and sometimes it gets tiring. But I noticed I've never debated this with you before so I thought I would let you know where I stand and why. If you have questions I would be more than glad to answer.


Here are a few relevant quotes to this discussion that might be of interest.





Reply
#92
And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:15,16.)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting. For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world might be saved by Him. He that believeth in Him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:14-18.)

And the keeper of the prison, awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the doors of the prison open, drawing his sword, would have killed himself, supposing the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, do thyself no harm for we are all here. Then calling for a light, he went in and trembling, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas. And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved? But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.” (Acts 16:27-32.)

But what saith the Scripture? ‘The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart.’ This is the word of faith, which we preach. For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture saith: ‘Whosoever believeth in Him, shall not be confounded.’ For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon Him. ‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.’ How then shall they call on Him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things
!’” (Romans 10:8-15.)

Whoever wishes to be saved must above all, keep the Catholic faith; for unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever…This is what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity…It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believe steadfastly in the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ…This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise he cannot be saved.” (Athanasian Creed Denz. 39,40.)

Yet, since ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Heb. 11:6) and to enter the company of His sons, no one has ever obtained justification without faith and no one will reach eternal life, unless ‘he has persevered to the end’ in faith (Matt. 10:22; 24:13). However, in order to enable us to fulfill our obligation of embracing the true faith and steadfastly persevering in it, God established the Church through His only-begotten Son and endowed it with unmistakable marks of its foundation, so that it could be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.” (Denz. 67) Vatican I

And if our Gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to a man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about things one is bound to know


If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jo. 15:22): ‘If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin&’; which Augustine expounds (Tract. 89 in Joan.) as ‘referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.
St. Thomas Aquinas


The Council of Vienne:
All the faithful must confess only one Baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation.” (Denz. 482)

The Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 5:
If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 691)

You have read that the three witnesses in Baptism - the water, the blood and the Spirit - are one. This means that if you take away one of these, the sacrament of Baptism is not conferred. What is the water without the cross of Christ? Only an ordinary element without sacramental effect. Again, without water there is no sacrament of rebirth: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord with which he too is signed, but unless he is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit he cannot receive the forgiveness of sins or the gift of spiritual grace St. Ambrose

I am the door. By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pasture.” (John 10:9)

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them, Ye princes of the people, and ancients hear: if we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he has been made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you crucified, Whom God hath raised from the dead, even by Him this man standeth before you whole: This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:8-12)





Reply
#93
(05-17-2009, 12:22 PM)didishroom Wrote: I also want to make one other thing prefectly clear. I do not believe baptism of desire in the strictest sense is heresy per se. The Church has never defined in either in the negative as heresy or affirmation as de fide. I also acknowledge the toleration of it by many saints and popes. You on the other hand should aslo acknowledge that the Church tolerates those that deny BOD, and has affirmed their status as full members of the Church-impossible if they hold heretical beliefs.

As I have said before, it seems to me that Baptism of Desire is very likely a sententia definitive tenenda. According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church" (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, 6).
It logically follows, then, that I do not only think that Catholics must firmly hold Baptism of Desire, but also that Feenyites are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

You may claim that the Church permits Feenyism, but I wonder if you hold that Catholics are free to deny that Florence, Trent, and Vatican I are Ecumenical Councils, as many clergymen of the various Eastern Catholic Churches do with no more condemnation than the Feenyites receive. 
Reply
#94
So you believe, Resurrexi, that the invincibly ignorant can be saved?
Reply
#95
Quote:You may claim that the Church permits Feenyism, but I wonder if you hold that Catholics are free to deny that Florence, Trent, and Vatican I are Ecumenical Councils, as many clergymen of the various Eastern Catholic Churches do with no more condemnation than the Feenyites receive
I am not aware of any binding Church document which permits the Eastern Catholics to do this. Florence dealt specifically with the Eastern Churches. If some do reject them and they are not punished then it is done through negligence. I know Eastern Catholics who are very orthodox and others who seem to be Catholic in name only and do reject alot of what they perceive to "Romish."

"Feeneyites" however have been regularized by local ordinaries and even abook defending "Feeneyism" was declared to be free from all moral and doctrinal error. Our current Holy Father even visited a pro-Feeney abbey in Still River and met with the superior of one of the branches of the Order in Rome. 
Reply
#96
(05-17-2009, 01:31 PM)didishroom Wrote:
Quote:You may claim that the Church permits Feenyism, but I wonder if you hold that Catholics are free to deny that Florence, Trent, and Vatican I are Ecumenical Councils, as many clergymen of the various Eastern Catholic Churches do with no more condemnation than the Feenyites receive
I am not aware of any binding Church document which permits the Eastern Catholics to do this. Florence dealt specifically with the Eastern Churches. If some do reject them and they are not punished then it is done through negligence. I know Eastern Catholics who are very orthodox and others who seem to be Catholic in name only and do reject alot of what they perceive to "Romish."

"Feeneyites" however have been regularized by local ordinaries and even abook defending "Feeneyism" was declared to be free from all moral and doctrinal error. Our current Holy Father even visited a pro-Feeney abbey in Still River and met with the superior of one of the branches of the Order in Rome. 

There is no magisterial document permitting Eastern Christians in communion in Rome to deny the ecumenical nature of those Councils any more than there is a magisterial document permitting Feenyism. (Nota bene, there are many members of the Eastern sui iuris Churches who are completely orthodox, just as there are many orthodox lovers of the extraordinary form.)

Sadly, the fact that a book has an imprimatur is no longer always a guarantee that it is truly free from doctrinal error. The Breaking Bread Hymnal, which has heretical hymns in it, has an imprimatur.

You might be interested to know that the Patriarch of the Melkite Church himself considers all the Ecumenical Councils after the first seven not to be binding upon Eastern Catholics. He has publicly stated this numerous times. The fact that a group has been regularized does not always indicate that group's orthodoxy.
Reply
#97
(05-17-2009, 01:23 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: So you believe, Resurrexi, that the invincibly ignorant can be saved?

The Magisterium of the Church says as much.
Reply
#98
Quote:There is no magisterial document permitting Eastern Christians in communion in Rome to deny the ecumenical nature of those Councils any more than there is a magisterial document permitting Feenyism. (Nota bene, there are many members of the Eastern sui iuris Churches who are completely orthodox, just as there are many orthodox lovers of the extraordinary form.)
Actually the Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission declared that: The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not.We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

Quote:Sadly, the fact that a book has an imprimatur is no longer always a guarantee that it is truly free from doctrinal error. The Breaking Bread Hymnal, which has heretical hymns in it, has an imprimatur.
I understand, but I'm showing that they have protection from members of the Magisterium as well. 

Quote:You might be interested to know that the Patriarch of the Melkite Church himself considers all the Ecumenical Councils after the first seven not to be binding upon Eastern Catholics. He has publicly stated this numerous times. The fact that a group has been regularized does not always indicate that group's orthodoxy.
But Melkites were regularized before this Patriarch made this supposed statement(which would be heretical if what you say is true). His personal defects have no bearing on the Church's approval of the Melkite Rite.
When the "Feeneyites" were regularized everyone knew their positions and they never changed them or compromised. It would seem strange that the Church would tolerate them when they are perhaps the biggest threat to false ecumenism which is so rampant today.
Reply
#99
(05-17-2009, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 01:23 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: So you believe, Resurrexi, that the invincibly ignorant can be saved?

The Magisterium of the Church says as much.

It does not. Vatican I delcared Faith is necessary for salvatio. And I believe it was Pope Innocent XI who condemned the idea that a belief in a creator that comes from observing the natural world could suffice for Faith and Salvation.
Reply
(05-17-2009, 02:28 PM)didishroom Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 01:23 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: So you believe, Resurrexi, that the invincibly ignorant can be saved?

The Magisterium of the Church says as much.

It does not. Vatican I delcared Faith is necessary for salvatio. And I believe it was Pope Innocent XI who condemned the idea that a belief in a creator that comes from observing the natural world could suffice for Faith and Salvation.

The Magisterium says the invincibly ignorant can be saved, not that they will be saved without Faith. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)