Errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church
#91
(02-10-2012, 10:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:18 PM)JMartyr Wrote: 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.. Condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
Would this include unbaptised babies?

Yes. Unbaptised babies (and adults) are not in the true Church of Christ.
where did my miscarried baby go???
Reply
#92
(02-10-2012, 11:47 PM)Edward Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:18 PM)JMartyr Wrote: 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.. Condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
Would this include unbaptised babies?

Yes. Unbaptised babies (and adults) are not in the true Church of Christ.
where did my miscarried baby go???

What a misfortune! You have my prayers to help cope with such an immense burden. However, know that no misfortune comes to pass save that which God permissively wills. Trust in Him!

The Catholic Church teaches that your baby will go to Limbo which, though it be a realm devoid of the Beatific Vision, is nevertheless not without the natural happiness that results from the knowledge of participating in God's perfect justice without ever having offended Him.
Reply
#93
(02-10-2012, 11:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: There isn't a problem with describing periods as "'fat" and "pre-fat".  If people claimed that Elvis became a different person when he got fat, there would be a problem.  There wouldn't be anything wrong with simply using pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar to denote time.  Talking like these are two different churches is a problem.

But Fat Elvis and Pre-Fat Elvis while being the same person are not the same performer.  The voice is different, the costuming is different the gestures are different.  All worse compared to Pre-Fat Elvis.  

The Church may still be the same in the organizational structure and it may occupy the same space but it doesn't perform nearly as well as it used to and it falters in its performance like Fat Elvis.  Struggling and looking pathetic in trying to be relevant with the times instead of sticking with what made success come originally.  

The Church unlike Elvis has the power to undo most of the damage wrought by years of neglect and abuse.  
Reply
#94
(02-10-2012, 11:09 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I posted it for the third paragraph:
Renewal is always necessary for the Church, because the conversion of her members, poor sinners, is always necessary! But there cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate!

There's genuine renewal and there's counterfeit renewal. Vatican II is the Council of Counterfeit Renewal, renewal being its codeword for the introduction of every manner of blasted novelty.

Correct, there cannot be a pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar Church. There is the Catholic Church and there is the Conciliar Church. The Catholic Church has continued since its establishment by Jesus Christ, and it shall continue unto the end. The Conciliar Church was spawned at the Second Vatican Council, and it's slowly but surely being exposed as the counterfeit that it is.

Let's remind ourselves of these words of St. Athanasius:

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the Churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the apostolic faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the faith? The true faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle -- the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the faith? 

"True, the premises are good when the apostolic faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ... 

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and if an execrable jealously has tried to shake it in a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. 

"No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers, and we believe that God will give us our Churches back some day. 

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church but in reality they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. 

"Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

(Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp 411-412)."

Reply
#95
(02-10-2012, 11:47 PM)Edward Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:18 PM)JMartyr Wrote: 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.. Condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
Would this include unbaptised babies?

Yes. Unbaptised babies (and adults) are not in the true Church of Christ.
where did my miscarried baby go???

INPEFESS, as usual, explained it well. Also listen to these:

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200412...ptism.html

&

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200704...Limbo.html
Reply
#96
(02-11-2012, 12:25 AM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 11:09 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I posted it for the third paragraph:
Renewal is always necessary for the Church, because the conversion of her members, poor sinners, is always necessary! But there cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate!

There's genuine renewal and there's counterfeit renewal. Vatican II is the Council of Counterfeit Renewal, renewal being its codeword for the introduction of every manner of blasted novelty.

Correct, there cannot be a pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar Church. There is the Catholic Church and there is the Conciliar Church. The Catholic Church has continued since its establishment by Jesus Christ, and it shall continue unto the end.

So where is the Catholic Church now if not with those who are the successors of the apostles?
Reply
#97
Jayne: I think your most recent expression is better, but not just the words: it's substantively different. You can hope that, though there are souls in hell, that they are not those of the ones you have known and loved.

That's different from hoping no one's in hell. The first is obviously legitimate. The second doesn't seem to be.
Reply
#98
Alphonsus, be careful. You are pretty much promoting sedevacantism, and that is not allowed here. Cut it out.
Reply
#99
(02-11-2012, 12:55 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 12:25 AM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 11:09 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I posted it for the third paragraph:
Renewal is always necessary for the Church, because the conversion of her members, poor sinners, is always necessary! But there cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate!

There's genuine renewal and there's counterfeit renewal. Vatican II is the Council of Counterfeit Renewal, renewal being its codeword for the introduction of every manner of blasted novelty.

Correct, there cannot be a pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar Church. There is the Catholic Church and there is the Conciliar Church. The Catholic Church has continued since its establishment by Jesus Christ, and it shall continue unto the end.

So where is the Catholic Church now if not with those who are the successors of the apostles?

A careful readiing of these will provide the answer you seek:

http://sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm

&

http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacant...antism.htm
Reply
(02-10-2012, 09:50 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 09:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The reprobate, not to mention the devil and his angels, were predestined from all time to be there.

The Catholic Church has repeatedly stated that it is improper to describe the reprobate as predestined to Hell.  

This is a heresy call predestinarianism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

The Council of Quiersy in 853 stated:

Quote:Chap. 1. Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the "mass of perdition" of the entire human race. The just and good God, however, chose from the same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life [Rom. 8:29 ff.; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition, however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice.

Saint Thomas Aquinas says:

Quote:The causality of reprobation is unlike that of predestination. For predestination is the cause both of what is awaited in the future, namely glory, and of what is received in the present, namely grace. Whereas reprobation is not the cause of present fault, but of future result, namely, of being abandoned by God. Fault is born of the freewill of the person who deserts grace.

The Council of Trent also condemned double predestination:

Quote:If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of Himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.

What you are describing sounds more like John Calvin:

Quote:They are predestined to eternal death solely by his decision, apart from their own merit.

. . . those, then, whom he created for dishonor in life and destruction in death . . .

. . . his immutable decree had once for all destined them to destruction.
 

This is a very interesting post, Someone1776. I appreciate these thoughts on the matter because I believe this is a matter of importance. Predestination is my favorite doctrine of the Church and so it gives me great delight to speak of it and to meditate upon it. It is an incredible mystery.

But I think what Vetus Ordo is saying, which I believe he clarified in a subsequent post, is that it is incorrect to say that they are unconditionally predestined to reprobation. To say that God predestined them to Hell irrespective of their own theoretical cooperation with grace (or at least failure to reject it), or that He did not give them the real and genuine opportunity to cooperate with grace hic et nunc via his dispensation of sufficient grace, would be an unconditional reprobation, which would be heretical. This is the sense in which double predestination is condemned, as far as I am aware. "Predestinarianism" is predicated upon the belief that the same mechanism determining election determines reprobation--namely, that while good fruit is a consequence of election (rather than the cause), bad fruit is a consequence of reprobation (rather than a cause). But this is not the case. As Vetus Ordo pointed out, they are predestined to Hell insomuch as God, foreseeing their future demerits, permits via His consequent will their eternal reprobation, and creates them with an infallible foreknowledge of their damnation. This means that reprobation is the consequence of their bad fruits, not that their bad fruits are the consequence of reprobation. This does not mean that He does not offer them the genuine opportunity to escape their destiny (which, despite being unbeknownst to them at the time, is what they freely choose); rather, it means that He infallibly knows they won't escape their destiny because of their own fault. He creates them knowing this and permits it in order to show His justice, as St. Paul writes.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)