Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#81
Regardless of whether modern-day protestants are to be counted as material or formal heretics they still have no access to the sacrament of penance and thus would be damned by their own sins, if not their own heresy. That alone eliminates the possibility of salvation for every protestant post-age of reason.
Reply
#82
(06-25-2012, 09:17 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Regardless of whether modern-day protestants are to be counted as material or formal heretics they still have no access to the sacrament of penance and thus would be damned by their own sins, if not their own heresy. That alone eliminates the possibility of salvation for every protestant post-age of reason.
How judgmental!
How non-inclusive!
How unecumenical of you!

Don't be so closed minded.

:)
Reply
#83
(06-25-2012, 08:30 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Stubborn, you are.

What makes me smart is the following: I read what was written, I ask questions on it, I compare what I understood to be the case vs what is explained. I read it again. I then find the doctrine as explained, tested, and unable to be countered but by falsehoods.

I can prove Protestants wrong about the Church using their Bible, because with rare exception, it's the same thing as concerns the New Testament, since all the KJV translators did was rip off the Douay-Rheims.

The only missing books in the Protestant Bible are unneeded to prove their doctrine wrong. I do it daily.

Good grief dude, you're back sore yet from all the patting you're giving it? FYI, what you just wrote above is wrong - just fyi.


(06-25-2012, 08:30 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: I do know how to pick my battles, you don't. You don't because you think that as a cradle Catholic with all the answers (which are wrong) you can fight me and win. But you won't win because you don't fight me, but Christ. Just like Saint Paul, or rather, Shaul as he would have been known prior to his conversion, persecuted Christ when he obviously was persecuting physical Christians. Nuance.

You sound exactly like any prot, which certainly is better than any dumb old cradle Catholic - especially better than a trad cradle Catholic.

Haven't you even learned yet that no prophesy of the Scripture is made by private interpretation?

A little friendly advice for you, fwiw: Anytime anyone sincerely coverts to the truth, he moves forward embracing the new found truth while constantly seeking the next truth. He does not keep looking back to his past, to his evil ways of lies and falsehoods looking for answers and relishing his past errors, because like Lot's wife, looking back will bring your own destruction, it also shows where your heart lies - and where your heart lies, that is where your treasure is -  in your case, your heart is still trapped by the whole heretical prot mirage. So stop looking back, move forward, move heavenward. 


(06-25-2012, 08:30 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Pope Eugene IV is saying what I'm saying: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

What you don't get, is the nuance of that.

You who say prots are in heaven think that you say the same thing as Pope Eugene IV? You musta forgot about them nasty old nuances - - -or he did - which is it?

Reply
#84
(06-25-2012, 09:21 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 09:17 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Regardless of whether modern-day protestants are to be counted as material or formal heretics they still have no access to the sacrament of penance and thus would be damned by their own sins, if not their own heresy. That alone eliminates the possibility of salvation for every protestant post-age of reason.
How judgmental!
How non-inclusive!
How unecumenical of you!

Don't be so closed minded.

:)

Maybe I shouldv'e made the exception for those protestants who are mentally disabled  :grin: But in all seriousness the protestant, no matter how sincere he may appear to be, lacks the virtue of faith, without which it is impossible to please God. Those who do truly seek after him in a sincere and upright manner God will not abandon. Before their deaths they will be joined to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, as Pope Eugene requires for a man to be saved.
Reply
#85
(06-25-2012, 05:38 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Melkite, according to your own limit on what constitutes the essentials most of the first 7 ecumenical councils become worthless. Afterall, who cares what Ephesus and Chalcedon concerning the Nature(s) of the Second Person? They dont fall under your list of "essentials." But to answer your question I believe those essentials that you listed are those essential beliefs that no Catholic past the age of reason can deny and then claim ignorance as a defense. They are not all that we need to believe, for Christ commands us to follow all that he has commanded of us.

That's true, but also everything from the first 7 ecumenical councils had to do with defining who Christ is as a person and his part in the Godhead.  So that would be essential.  Clearly, whether Christ has a human nature and divine nature that are separate but inseparable, or both natures but are completely separate from eachother, or both natures fused into one is a little more essential than whether the Theotokos was conceived without original sin or not, or whether her body was assumed into heaven or not, or weather the Pope's authority is supreme and immediate over the entire Church or not.
Reply
#86
(06-25-2012, 09:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 08:30 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Stubborn, you are.

What makes me smart is the following: I read what was written, I ask questions on it, I compare what I understood to be the case vs what is explained. I read it again. I then find the doctrine as explained, tested, and unable to be countered but by falsehoods.

I can prove Protestants wrong about the Church using their Bible, because with rare exception, it's the same thing as concerns the New Testament, since all the KJV translators did was rip off the Douay-Rheims.

The only missing books in the Protestant Bible are unneeded to prove their doctrine wrong. I do it daily.

Good grief dude, you're back sore yet from all the patting you're giving it? FYI, what you just wrote above is wrong - just fyi.

No, kidding. 
Reply
#87
Neither of you get it.

It's a nuance that has always existed. It existed in when Romans 2 was written, and it exists now. I gave my sources, and especially St. Thomas Aquinas is very clear. He explains the nuance of it. It's in plain English.

Stubborn, if think that one does not learn, as a Catholic, from their past, or, having been a convert, can't bring something with them, such as remembering where verses are, or how to apply Catholic doctrine to the vast array of scriptural (or other) knowledge they had prior, I'd like to ask you to just burn bloody everything St. Augustine EVER wrote. You really want to go down this rabbit hole? Just think on what you said for a moment, and reflect on St. Augustine.

If that doesn't do it, think on Saint Paul, post establishment of Church, before Paul, and after.

Now tell me you take it back, because if you have an ounce of common sense in your head, you will. Your claim about my "evil past" and all that jazz: dude, I agree with hyperbole of it, but you meant it as a volley of arrows, and so I fight in the shade? thanks.

But let's focus on the real issue, which is you don't know doctrine and let us focus on what you don't know:

Think about this for a second:

Israel was always promised to be the Church. The Church is Israel. This is why we are grafted in, as Saint Paul says in Romans 11. As far as I know, I ain't got a drop of Jewish blood in me. So, If I'm in the tree of Israel, and I know I'm not Jewish, I'm a grafted in Gentile; however, there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ, as we are all one. Cf. Malachi, Gal 3, Col. 3:11

Gentiles, before the establishment of the earthly Church through Christ, were outside of Israel, not being Jews.

Are you meaning to tell me that all Gentiles went to Hell, while just whoever was truly faithful and right in the law from Israel went to Heaven?

Now, there are certainly those who might have known about Israel and their religion, but how would they have known it was actually what they'd been really trying to find? What if it was explained to them incorrectly? What if before they "got it" they died? Never knowing the sprinkling of blood or the Todah sacrifice? Having not even access to baptism, because baptism wasn't even understood.

You do realize that there is nothing new under the Sun right? God's mercy and unfathomable ways that extended to mankind back then, extend to this very day.

Yes, it's complicated for us now. We might be able to look back and see how simple it was because Calvary hadn't happened yet, but this would be a very huge mistake for the graces of Calvary extend from the first soul to the last. And God has put certain ways in man's heart to follow this path to God. But there are many more obstacles than some might ever imagine. Yes, there will be people in Heaven who were Protestants while on earth, and who were muslim, or other. Yes, they will in heaven all be united to Christ, and thus, Catholic. They will in purgatory pay hard for their failings which they found themselves in without access to the Sacraments. But they will in some way, shape or form, be saved. That does not mean one can be baptized and then do whatever they want for the rest of their lives. No sir!

But they can be saved.

To not understand this is to lose needlessly to Atheists in arguments. Or Protestants, which I'm not.

What can I do to make you understand what I've provided as sources? I know there were at least some replies who never bothered to even look up the sources, based on the replies. Because the sources spell it out.

I found some quotes from Abp. Lefebvre. I don't have this book, so, I submit them with the hope that anyone in possession of the book can clarify and even post that these are accurate, if they are. I found them quoted online.
Quote:Quote:
“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press, 1997, p. 216]

Quote:Quote:
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “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 of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[quote]

Quote:“This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 217-218]

So, I REALLLLLLLLLLLY want to know:

Is the Bible wrong, The Popes wrong (all 265 and counting), the Saints wrong, Summa Theologica wrong, and even Abp. Lefebvre?

What about a Franciscan Friar from the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the ones that do the TLM and are very traditional: [video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD7LGjDUhbw
[/video]
Bishop Fellay:
Quote:Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Abp. Lefebvre:
Quote:"We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)


What's it gonna take for you to see it? You're heretics if you don't accept this!

You're wrong. You're teaching heresy. You obstinately refuse all manner of valid and authoritative sources. You're basically, at this point, in heresy of some degree.

You're no better than those you condemn.

Please, for the love of your souls, reaaaaallllly think on this while reading the sources I have provided.

Seek out a priest on this.

To capitalize on one of those evil lies and falsehoods I bring, and flip, from Protestant rapture theolojoking, as concerns Matthew Chapter 25:

Get right, or get left.

Lovingly yours,

Jon B. Horton

Rabid student of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Pope Pius X, St. Francis, St. Anthony of Padua, All the Apostles; admirer and studious reader of St. John; fervent prayer to Our Lady; Soldier of the Church Militant; Calvary's Cavalry Scout: knowing the terrain, knowing my enemy and his historical plan, having read all the tacticians, having read my enemies' manifestos, prepared myself for battle, have bested you, the legions of satan, who work for his synagogue, and sing his praises as do the muslims call to him in the most beautiful singing of Arabic poetry you've ever heard in your life. Heathens. Heretics.

DAMNIT. Our Lord DIED so we could have access to that which men and women have striven, lived, and died for so we could have access... and you don't even know it!?

You're no better than the Jews in 1st Century A.D. "palestine" who called for Our Lord's blood because they hated the idea of God's unfathomable love!

Get with the program people, this is war! You're needed!


[Image: crusader.jpg]

Reply
#88
I'm going to respond to your doctrinal assertions soon when I'm settled in for the night, Jon, but in the meantime I think it's worth saying that your holier-than-thou shtick is getting old.  Just because others disagree with you doesn't mean that it's logical or appropriate for you to question their intelligence.  Nor is it appropriate for you to start leveling charges of heresy.

If you're as intelligent as you say you are, you shouldn't have to resort to such childish nonsense to get your point across.
Reply
#89
Quote:Jon B. Horton

Rabid student of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Pope Pius X, St. Francis, St. Anthony of Padua, All the Apostles; admirer and studious reader of St. John; fervent prayer to Our Lady; Soldier of the Church Militant; Calvary's Cavalry Scout: knowing the terrain, knowing my enemy and his historical plan, having read all the tacticians, having read my enemies' manifestos, prepared myself for battle, have bested you, the legions of satan, who work for his synagogue, and sing his praises as do the muslims call to him in the most beautiful singing of Arabic poetry you've ever heard in your life. Heathens. Heretics.

What on earth is this nonsense?
Reply
#90
(06-26-2012, 12:27 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: Neither of you get it.

I learned a long time ago not to argue with prots who think they've left their errors behind them as they keep eating out of their bag of prot errors, shame really.

Take the advice I gave you and work with that.
:pray:

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)