Invincible Ignorance at a glance.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
By my understanding, anyone who believes in God, and diligently prays and does good works according to what their religion teaches, as long as they have not been taught the "truth" of Catholicism, they will be saved. Am I correct in this understanding?It seems rather strange because there are many people who worship and believe in false gods, yet supposedly their faith in their false god and their good works are good enough to merit salvation.
On the contrary, protestants have more exposure to the doctrines of Catholicism, and while rejecting many of those doctrines, believe into Christ, pray and fellowship with Him everyday, and give their whole lives for Him, as well as do good works etc, yet somehow their faith is not enough to merit salvation. However, a protestant who doesn't know the teachings of Catholicism but worships, prays, lives his life like his protestant brother who is doomed, is somehow able to be saved.
In a sense then it almost seems that the Catholic gospel is in a sense a curse, because once you've heard it, if you don't submit, you're doomed, but if you don't hear it, but believe in God, whoever that God may be, and do good works you're saved.
Is this in essence what Catholics believe?
And yes I know I'm dead and buried according to Catholic teaching, but what constitutes invincible ignorance in a person?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005
bump
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
Oliver;Short answer is yes, there is no excuse for you. Sounds harsh, and crazy, by that is Catholic teaching.
Question; Do you discern the real presence n the Holy Eucharist?
Rhe Jews did not. They said it was too harsh a teaching. Are they saved? No.
Our Lord said, " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me".. Whoever eats my flesh shall never die" Plain and to the point.
Think about it.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 23, 2005.
This thread is about invincible ignorance, not about the Eucharist, not about my faith. Please let's stick to the topic, thanks.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
Oliver,A soul is always doomed if he/she dies in mortal sin. One faith only was given us by the apostles for the forgiveness of sin. Unless your faith is that one; your sins are hardly EVER forgiven.
That goes for Catholics and non-Catholics, Jews, pagans and atheists. No matter how educated, or to which sect they belong. SIN is the first problem.
You may deny this. But the Catholic Church was given us to take away our sins, as faithful followers of Jesus. Not only by good works and faith; but by living free of sin. Outside the Church, your ideas of sin really vary. That's obvious. So, with all your faith and all the scriptures and your good will; you may yet die in your sins! How are you to come to REAL repentence and true forgiveness of sin? By the sacraments Christ instituted in and for His Church. They are spoken of in the Bible; but you can't receive any of them by reading. You must LIVE in the Church, and be sanctified in her.
Christ left nothing to chance. We are taught by His holy apostles. The whole truth. All our spiritual needs are truly handed to us, for our repentence and final perseverance.
Outside of the Church is a spiritual wilderness. Jesus spoke of a lamb; running away from the good Shepherd, who catches him and brings him back to his sheepfold. The lamb is each soul who lives in the spiritual wilderness where the Church can't help him. The Church is Christ's holy sheepfold. The faithful within are His own sheep. While they live inside the sheepfold they can be helped to salvation. They are sanctified there. That's what Jesus gave us his Church for; to bring us IN from the wilderness.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
Incidentally:
You can't be invincibly ignorant. The truth has been offered Oliver, already. But many other souls in the world, if only they knew what you know now, would be able to repent and be saved. Since they don't know, only repentence is an option. What else? Good works? Suffering in hope, faith?Then the option is GOD'S. ''Shall I forgive him, or not?'' The prayers of His people go up to Him with every Rosary:
O Jesus, deliver us from sin; save us from the fires of hell. Lead ALL SOULS to heaven, especially those who are in most need of Thy mercy.'' -- --ALL SOULS, clearly is a faithful prayer for those in invincible ignorance.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
A soul is always doomed if he/she dies in mortal sin. One faith only was given us by the apostles for the forgiveness of sin. Unless your faith is that one; your sins are hardly EVER forgiven.Ok so mortal sins can be forgiven, even if hardly ever, how so?
How about those who commit venial sins only?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
WOEWOEWOE! Stop the musicCatholic Church was given us to take away our sins........Wasn't that the crusafiction of Jesus that did that. And even that it was so we can recieve forgiveness for our sins? Can you please bust out some doctrine on that cuz im just starting to truly question my faith here?
-- kat (riesoracle@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.
Good question.
The Church has power from her divine Founder to forgive us mortal and venial sins. She is authorized to make us do penance, as well. This presupposes our repentence; if we confess without contrition, the sacrament is null & void. Jesus did it as a way of bringing us His grace in this sacrament. We call it Reconciliation today; it used to be Penance. When we confess to Christ's minister, we are absolved completely of all sin; and we receive sanctifying grace.If a soul who has been absolved and given grace dies without committing sin subsequently, (the state of grace), he/she is saved for eternity. We have Our Saviour's word for it, who cannot deceive or be deceived. He is God.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
Sorry Eugene, but I wish to draw you back to the intention of this thread. All these things I'm discussing with you, I'd like it to be considered in the light of those in invincible ignorance, outside the Catholic Church, e.g. muslims,hindus, protestants, buddhists, JW's etc.How are they saved from their sins?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
O Jesus, deliver us from sin; save us from the fires of hell. Lead ALL SOULS to heaven, especially those who are in most need of Thy mercy.'' -- --ALL SOULS, clearly is a faithful prayer for those in invincible ignorance.Sorry I must have overlooked your post. I guess this answers my question. Thanks.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
I bring this matter up because it seems to me that one can be saved without believing into Christ.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
kat--
We haven't alll day and night to trot out all the catechism for you. Jesus Christ gave many powers to his apostles and gave them our Church. We go to her to learn the Gospel and every teaching of the apostles. Among them is the reception of Christ's sacraments. His grace is left to the Catholic Church, to distribute TO US, in her sacraments. The greatest are Baptism and the Eucharist. Other sacraments, Reconciliation (forgive us our sin) Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders (priesthood) and Annointing of the Sick. Each one gives us grace merited for us by Christ on the cross of Calvary. He designed it all in this way. NOT MEN.We do it Christ's way, or the Highway. You don't get His grace out of trees. He left the world his Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
TC, could you explain what you meant by "The Jews did not. They said it was too harsh a teaching. Are they saved? No."What was too harsh?
-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 23, 2005.
The teaching concerning the Eucharist, that they had to eat and drink the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
Eugene,"Incidentally: You can't be invincibly ignorant. The truth has been offered Oliver"
Incidently, when did the Church ever declare that the "invincibly ignorant" are only those who have not been told or offered the Truth by humans.
Pius IX: "...who would dare to set limits to this ignorance...?"
Unless Truth is offered an individual by our infinite God, then the ignorance can in fact remain invincible. "From those to whom little is given, little is expected; those to whom a good deal is given, a great deal is demanded." The human will to accept God's Truth can only be vincible when it is our infinite God who addresses that will.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.
Pardon my apparent lack of humility, Father. I say the Church has informed Oliver. He may not believe, but it's not because he's ignorant anymore.The gist of invincible ignorance is precisely that God knows it for a true impediment. I suppose Oliver could say one day, ''I never knew.'' Let's hope God believes him.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
"Let's hope God believes him."Actually, it would be "let's hope Oliver would be being honest" when making the claim; after all, only he and God would know.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
"Unless Truth is offered an individual by our infinite God, then the ignorance can in fact remain invincible. "From those to whom little is given, little is expected; those to whom a good deal is given, a great deal is demanded."The fundamental absurdity of your private interpretation of this passage is this:
Only Catholics can be damned. Or at a minimum, at least it seems more dangerous to be Catholic than to not be Catholic. Which is exactly what Oliver has perceived:
"In a sense then it almost seems that the Catholic gospel is in a sense a curse, because once you've heard it, if you don't submit, you're doomed, but if you don't hear it, but believe in God, whoever that God may be, and do good works you're saved."
The problem isn't with Oliver. The problem arises from a liberal straying from the immutable dogma of the Catholic Church.
The Church has never taught anything that would lead to a conclusion such as this. That's because it never truly has taught that ignorance was salvific. That's because it in fact has always taught of the reality of Original Sin and the necessity of the Sacraments.
When these dogmas are held firmly and entirely, the absurdity ceases to be.
When that happens, the upside-downness is immediate corrected, and what makes sense prevails, which is simply this:
Of course it isn't more dangerous to be Catholic than not Catholic.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
It's staements like this that lead me to heap scorn on you, Emerald. YOUR fault saying:''That's because it never truly has taught that ignorance was salvific.''
How dare you say that? We never said ignorance was enough to save any soul. REPENTENCE of all sin might save him. IF he was not in the faith from invincible ignorance. The ignorance is only a mitigating factor, not the salvific one. God's MERCY is the source of salvation.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
"It's staements like this that lead me to heap scorn on you, Emerald."That's fine. I can handle it.
"YOUR fault saying: ''That's because it never truly has taught that ignorance was salvific.'' How dare you say that? We never said ignorance was enough to save any soul."
The way it is being used, in the final analysis, that actually IS in effect what's being said. Whether it is openly stated or not.
"REPENTENCE of all sin might save him."
Yeah, but that's dealing with Actual Sin. Actual sin isn't the only factor here, you know.
"IF he was not in the faith from invincible ignorance. The ignorance is only a mitigating factor, not the salvific one."
True. It can mitigate punishment due for sin, but it cannot save from sin.
But look, if I were to press Father on this point, it would eventually work out on his end to ignorance being salvific.
Ever notice on some of these threads how after people try to browbeat some poor Protestant into accepting Catholicism, that if he doesn't, then the conclusion is "hey, the guy must be invincibly ignorant". It's the catch-all explain-all. It let's them off the hook and sooths the intellect. Conversely, vincible ignorance is used as a crowbar on the trads, pretending as if they didn't accept some goofy new theological rerenderings, they'll be damned for not doing so. That's how it works out in theory, and what's more, it's even observable in practice! People even draw the nutsy conclusion that the trads who hold to dogma and tradition are out, and those who don't are in.
I don't see what the problem is with just believing the dogma of the Church without explaining the destiny of each person case by case, as if we could. Including Oliver here. The poor guy is just asking questions, and now all of sudden, it's open season on determining whether he's vincibly or invincibly ignorant.
It's just so much doggone easier to just tell the Catholic truth. People respect this.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
OliverEugene managed 5 or 6 posts without mentioning the real first obstacle to salvation -- Original Sin.
of course any protestant who has been baptised before the age of reason - with water using a Trinitarian formula - may well be baptised and thus freed fom this sin. not so hindus, moslems, others,........, which you also wanted to know about.
...yet it is because of Original Sin that Eugene believes the unbaptised dead child to Limbo [subsection of Hell], though such child has not actually sinned in the sense of sin used by Eugene. goodness!
at the same time, however, Eugene is happy to contemplate the salvation of an adult, who is still in Original Sin and possibly actual sin -- through this ***novelty*** he describes as Invincible Ignorance.
even then, he is abusing the definition of this term - hence his correction by Fr Paul.
well, i agree with Fr Paul -- the Pope has elaborated upon this - "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" now means that salvation will not avail the person who "knows" the Church to be the one founded by Jesus yet who rejects it.
yes, Oliver, "know". i am sure that you don't know that -- otherwise you would be Catholic. right? you were once a Catholic? if so, presumably you did't discover that the Church was founded by Christ and then decide to leave. seems to me to be prima facie invincible ignorance.
therefore, Fr Paul is correct to censure Eugene: JPII does not condemn you outright unde EENS. he does, however, consider your salvation to be really quite in danger because, amongst other things, you do not have Sacraments.
confused??
innocent babies don't go to Heaven because of Original Sin, yet Moslems and Jews, who live in Original Sin, and possibly a ton of Actual Sin, can. the innocent babies, clearly, cannot be invincibly ignorant, can they?
this is the proof of the old adage -"what a wicked web you weave, when you set out to deceive."
the true position is much simpler:
1 only Catholics are saved - if they die freed from Actual Sin 2 to be Catholic, obvioulsy "Trinitarianly" baptised in water, PLUS complete acceptance of the Faith, to mean the most fundamental bits, plus willingness absolutely to embrace others as they are revealed to you 3 for children, baptism removes orig sin; no actual sin. that's all baptised babies, not just those baptised by a Catholic priest or born into Catholicism. when they reject the Faith at the age of reason, things change. 4 more or less PERIOD. mea culpa is something missing.
does being simpler make it better? not really. but it sure removes the embarassing ambiguities and uncertainties. and it tallies with St Thomas, the pre VII Councils, the Church Fathers,.........
don't mean to bore you young man, but at least you know that the Pope is probably happy with your salvation prospects.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.
As usual the hypocritical reply from Emerald: ''True. It [invincible ignorance] --can mitigate punishment due for sin, but it cannot save from sin.''just after I'd told him flatly; We never said ignorance can save any soul.
God saves souls. God can do so without abrogating any Church teaching. Invincible ignorance is instantly known to Him, and if the soul has offered Him love and perfect contrition, all that's needed is MERCY on the sinner. Catholics believe God is infinitely Just and will not damn a soul for something he didn't even KNOW. That doesn't make ignorance ''salvific'' but seriously relevant. God weighs it in the balance; He's infinitely Just.
Men must humbly abide by His judgment; and that includes Catholics. -----------Also Catholic Pharisees.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Here is the other OX on Emerald's TRAD yoke.''-- innocent babies don't go to Heaven because of Original Sin, yet Moslems and Jews, who live in Original Sin, and possibly a ton of Actual Sin, --CAN.''
No mention of God's omniscience; or Moslems and Jews possibly being contrite or loving God with all their heart? . Oh, NO! They must be going to heaven with all their sins. They've obtained God's mercy without repentence!
We explained repeatedly, without God's mercy and forgiveness, they will be damned. Even if they're invincibly ignorant and can't understand. But Ian decided God CAN'T forgive them; no matter what. Ian wouldn't forgive even the most charitable, contrite, upright Jew or ANYBODY. -----------------What a Nazi! ''No salvation for YOU ! ! ! ! !''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Here is the other ox on Emerald's trad yoke. ''--innocent babies don't go to Heaven because of Original Sin, yet Moslems and Jews, who live in Original Sin, and possibly a ton of Actual Sin, can.''No mention of God's omniscience; or Moslems and Jews possibly being contrite or loving God with all their heart? . Oh, NO! They must be going to heaven with all their sins.
We explained repeatedly, without God's mercy and forgiveness, they have to be damned. Even if they're invincibly ignorant and can't understand. But Ian decided God CAN'T forgive them; no matter what. Ian wouldn't forgive even the most charitable, contrite, upright Jew or ANYBODY.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
The same LIE, only more caustic and insulting:''at the same time, Eugene is happy to contemplate the salvation of an adult, who is still in Original Sin and possibly actual sin -- through this ***novelty*** he describes as Invincible Ignorance.''
Leave aside the fact we didn't speak of a ''novelty'' but the Church's explanation of her own doctrine. Not MY teaching, but Catholic teaching, on Baptism of Desire cum invincible ignorance cum repentence. Aside;
I never contemplate anyone saved while still in mortal sin, and not even Original Sin. I believe there is a Limbo. So, we see through this ridiculous ploy of Yancy's. He must resort to lying because he has nothing of intelligence or theological substance to contribute.
Yet he expects to hang around the forum forever, passing judgment on Popes and cardinals and Councils! Hahaha! Ian is the Mountain that laboured endlessly --terrificly, with intense PAIN! To bring forth a baby Mouse.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Notice how nobody responded to:"Pius IX: '...who would dare to set limits to this ignorance...?'"
Why could that be that this statement is ignored?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
I don't really know.
But there must be a good answer? I always thought unbaptised children who died were in Limbo. In fact, only last year in this forum did I meet Catholics who told me an unbaptised child could still be in heaven. I guess I'm an old dinosaur. Davidisexcited lambasted me for a ''silly old man.''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Ian, that was a really good post you wrote up; not only for demonstrating the absurdity of the view which is deviant from the true dogmatic stance, but also to show the simplicity and seamlessness of the position which upholds dogma.That particular one has always caught my attention: why the baby's prospects are worse than the man who has the same condition of Original Sin, but has also heaped upon that condition loads of virtually unavoidable Actual Sins.
But if the Faith is held inviolate, the absurdities cease. It's clear then that we were all born into a state which necessitated being saved, and absolutely so.
Once that's understood and accepted, then it in turn can sometimes drastically change one's participation in the Faith in daily life. If it's really all true, and it is, and if we have sought the remedy, there isn't much at that point that can be considered more important than staying in a state of grace and living our lives for the next, and hoping for and doing what might help others attain to the same.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
Emerald:
That's a lot of mumbo jumbo. A dead baby in Original Sin might stay that way (I suppose) but the other soul can repent. God will give him grace, as it happens. He/she may be capable of faith, hope and charity and can be BAPTISED at the end, if God so wills it. (Baptism by Desire.) Whereas the baby you speak of is beyond the point of baptism.You keep going on about DOGMA, with some kind of self-assured pride that only you believe in it. That others have been here circumventing dogma; as if God couldn't tell. We know God can tell, when human beings resist His commandments. You take us for simpletons.
We uphold and treasure Catholic doctrine and revealed truth--- DOGMA. We do not by-pass or streamline it. There is more to the revealed truth than you have desired, that's all. Your own prejudice keeps you impassive and robotic in your faith.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Emerald: That's a lot of mumbo jumbo. A dead baby in Original Sin might stay that way (I suppose) but the other soul can repent."Repent of Original Sin? Exactly how does one go about doing that successfully? You tell God I'm sorry" about being born in Original Sin, and it goes away?
"God will give him grace, as it happens."
There's this thing called baptism. It's something real, and really does something. It remedies Original Sin.
"He/she may be capable of faith, hope and charity and can be BAPTISED at the end, if God so wills it. (Baptism by Desire.) Whereas the baby you speak of is beyond the point of baptism."
You talk about mumbo jumbo, but then look at this. I'm not even sure what you are trying to explain. Try again? I'm being serious here. I don't know what you mean.
"You keep going on about DOGMA, with some kind of self-assured pride that only you believe in it. That others have been here circumventing dogma; as if God couldn't tell. We know God can tell, when human beings resist His commandments. You take us for simpletons."
Ask any average Catholic. They believe that good Muslims and Jews and Protestants go to heaven. Point to that dogma of the Church that says it infallible isn't so, and they blow a circuit. Try it. It's true. They don't really believe the dogma; they will attempt to circumvent it.
Of course people say, not it isn't true, no no no, we do not circumvent anything. But it is true. People don't believe it. It's like when someone else approaches the subject of, I don't know, Church architecture. You show them this monstrosity of a tabernacle, and they'll just continue to deny that it's ugly, and that you don't understand. But it's still ugly and still an affront to provide these things for Our Lord.
In fact, this whole conversation about dogma is analogous to a conversation with someone who is in love with modern art, come to think of it. He shows you a piece of garbage and you say, hey bud, that ain't art. He says, oh yeah it is. You say, no, that's not art, but here, here's art! You show him some real art. Yes that's art, he says, but so is this. No, you say, that's structured garbage.
This continues on. But eventually he'll just tell you that you're a moron, and because you're a moron, you don't understand his art. You're not a cultured person, so clearly, you do not have eye's to see beauty, he'll say.
That's the conversation we have going on here about dogma.
"We uphold and treasure Catholic doctrine and revealed truth--- DOGMA. We do not by-pass or streamline it. There is more to the revealed truth than you have desired, that's all. Your own prejudice keeps you impassive and robotic in your faith."
See? Case in point.
Besides that, how would you know I'm robotic in my faith?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
Fr Paul""Pius IX: '...who would dare to set limits to this ignorance...?'"
Why could that be that this statement is ignored?"
...because there is no "invincible ignorance". so there are no limits.
my short answer - i'm away until wednesday.
but in the meantime, maybe you could produce something authoritative - from before the time of Pius IX that argues for Invincible Ignorance.
remember: Bonzo started that thread where he showed how the 2 novelties - Invincible Ignorance [invented by Pius IX] and Baptism of Desire [argued by St Thomas/ St Augustine BUT on that extremely limited basis - Catuchumens: then rejected by the Councils] are combined to produce the thin end of the wedge of "Universalism".
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 25, 2005.
Emerald, it's OK;
I knew that you're obtuse. --Repent of Original Sin? Exactly how does one go about doing that successfully? You tell God I'm sorry" about being born in Original Sin?'' Not in fact, Emerald. For each soul baptised, the CHURCH does that. As done for infants.''You'' a soul in invincible ignorance, repent of all actual sin, reject it because you know it offends your Creator. Because God LOVES you, He is willing to grant you such a grace. Depending completely on how contrite you are, plus the extent to which your ignorance was NOT your own fault.
Because He is Omniscient and all-Merciful, He can see how you WOULD have had true DESIRE for Holy Baptism except for your blameless ignorance.
He would grant SOME righteous souls that DESIRE, Baptism at the hour of death. That washes away all actual and also Original Sin. All Baptisms wash away Original Sin, and this is the equivalent in grace of water Baptism. What is there about God and His divine MERCY that our Church's dogma doesn't support?
P. S. --I believe you're robotic about your faith. You're programmed to receive ONLY self-serving, sealed CODE. You call it Trad faith. Much like the Muslim's faith. An Ayatollah's seal is not to be challenged. And you'll call anyone who disputes you an ''infidel.'' Have you noticed how like robots they are?
When robots like those die, invincible ignorance can't save them. They always die in their sin: HATRED.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.
"Because He is Omniscient and all-Merciful, He can see how you WOULD have had true DESIRE for Holy Baptism except for your blameless ignorance. He would grant SOME righteous souls that DESIRE, Baptism at the hour of death. That washes away all actual and also Original Sin."This is a theory of your own.
The Church has never taught this.
--I robot Emerald
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
Yes she has. You've been out to lunch. I'm 67 years old and I learned it from Catholic doctrine before I was 20. I don't invent Church teachings and wouldn't put words in God's mouth. That would be a sin. I tell you exactly what the Church taught us ALL her faithful Catholics about Baptism of Desire and of Blood, and all about invincible ignorance.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.
You are right, Fr. Paul and Evgeny. Fight the good fight (for the sake of lurkers).As always, Emerald and Ian are wrong on this topic and, being mired in the grave sin of pride, refuse to learn from you and the popes and the Catechism.
-- in the bulrushes (lurkin@right.now), February 25, 2005.
In the bul?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
lol. To work, then.As always, Emerald and Ian are wrong on this topic..."
Please explain the error, bul.
"...and, being mired in the grave sin of pride, refuse to learn from you and the popes and the Catechism."
You have said that we are in mortal sin. I'm wondering, if we take you at your word, if we were to die this instant, would we get directly to Hell.
I'd like to press you on both points, if you will. Being interested only in the truth, I'm interested to see how well you can make the case. You seem sure of yourself, so naturally, I'd like to hear your in depth explanation.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
"from before the time of Pius IX"First it was the documents of Vatican II and after that were disputed, now we've pushed it back to beyond Pius IX. When will you guys concede? Do we have to go all the way back to Genesis?
You are a hopeless bunch.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.
"You are a hopeless bunch."You mean, you've depaired of convincing us of that everybody can be saved?
That's a real brain twister. Aahhhh... ok, I got it: The reason we are lost and there is no hope for us is because of our immense ignorance.
Ooops wait a minute. Hold on... that can't be right.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
You're hopeless because for you everything is cut and dry, no hope involved at all.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.
Emerald,
''you've depaired (sic) of convincing us of that everybody can be saved?''That might really BE cause for despair. No Catholic is ever going to claim everybody can be saved, or ought to be.
You're convinced nobody lives on earth who COULDN'T be saved, with water baptism alone. To you it's all ritual and nothing except. God does what you have programmed Him to do! That's close to presumption.
Catholics have NO faith in presumption, Emmie. Yet, it happens that a soul who is dying repentent and is granted Christ's sanctifying grace (Saint Dismas for instance) receives Baptism at last and isn't in presumption, but SAVED. It's almost too late to die in sin.
YOU would presume the baptismal ritual by itself is enough for saving everybody on earth. But everybody wouldn't necessarily die in the state of grace, baptised or not. --If only that could be! Whereas, whoever dies after the Baptism of Desire goes to heaven instead of sinning once more. (I would estimate.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.
Isn't immutable truth pretty well characterized by its cut 'n driedness?Reality really is black and white. Really. Some imagine grey areas. They don't exist, nor does the truth reside in any gray area. What's black and white only appears grey because of blurred vision.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
Remember, children;
That was God speaking.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
"To you it's all ritual and nothing except."Actually, that's quite incorrect. I would call it a reality and a sacrament, not a ritual. Protestants are all to eager to get by with the very same accusation. You use the word ritual rather loosely. I'm not talking about ritual. I'm talking about a Sacrament. There's a difference.
"God does what you have programmed Him to do! That's close to presumption."
Then you'd better quit presuming it. Because I didn't. You did.
Look, the point I made was simple, and it also happens to be true: the Church has never taught what you said.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
You made nothing. You expressed your dissent against the Church. That's not new, you can't stop doing it.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
"Remember, children; That was God speaking."This is one of those ploys that seeks to cast your opponent in a negative light. It falls under the genus of the ad hominem. Ad hominem means "to the man".
You take issue with me, but you do not address the topic at hand.
Obviously, I do not think I am God, speak for God, am God's representative, on a mission from God, or, am even pleasing to God. But you'd make it look like that was the case if it can keep you from considering the truth of statements made.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
"You made nothing. You expressed your dissent against the Church. That's not new, you can't stop doing it."Your interpretations are not "the Church".
Perhaps you should provide the appropriate documentation which proves that what you said is taught by the Church.
I dissent from no teaching of the Catholic Church. I do sin lots.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
[Emerald] presumes the baptismal RITE (sacrament) by itself is enough for saving everybody on earth. But everybody wouldn't necessarily die in the state of grace, --- So he's reaching. Likewise, Catholic doctrine doesn't tell us every soul has access to Baptism of Desire, just for being invincibly ignorant. That would be asking too much of God. But for some; who are truly innocent of the Gospel truth and yet lived righteous lives, repent, and ask His forgiveness before dying:Jesus said, ''With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'' (Matt 19.) --Baptism of Desire is something God can grant.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
Brainy:''Your interpretations are not "the Church".'' But EMERALD'S are the Church? Stop!!! You're making me LAUGH!!!!!!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
Actually, my position is far, far more simply than the manner in which you might wish to characterize it. It is as follows:Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation;
Water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of baptism;
There is, outside the Catholic Church, absolutely no salvation.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
These make you laugh, Eugene?I wonder if that's dissent.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
''Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation;
Water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of baptism;
There is, outside the Catholic Church, absolutely no salvation.''Bravo! Very orthodox. I believe these truths. ''-- Water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of baptism,'' is exactly right. With the Form, this is the Holy Rite of Baptism, as known from the apostolic deposit of faith; therefore indisputable.
In Baptism of Desire sanctifying grace, without the usual baptismal character, comes sans Rite as we know it. It still regenerates, and is Baptism in the teachings of the Catholic faith. This is easily borne out by reading the words of Jesus Christ in the gospels. When you have faith in the words of Christ, no Catholic dogma is to the contrary. We know all the ''distinctions'' you have problems with, Emerald. Don't fret. You'll come around, because you trust in him just as I do. He can neither deceive nor be deceived.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
Fr Paul: "First it was the documents of Vatican II and after that were disputed, now we've pushed it back to beyond Pius IX. When will you guys concede? Do we have to go all the way back to Genesis?"Father, you might find that the notion of invincible ignorance is trashed by all the great Doctors and Popes. Google it and read for yourself. the reason: "Original Sin". if you can find it somewhere pre- Pius IX, then show me. let's trace it further back if that's possible.....
you might also find that, when he argued Baptism of Desire, St THomas reserved it EXCLUSIVELY for Catuchumens. BoD was rejected by the Councils, so it's a hypothetical point anyways .... but inasmuch as it could have had any basis, it was available to Catuchumens only. no-one else. certainly not the "invincibly ignorant".
these two novelties fuse and....BANG.....
i can lead you to water; i can't make you drink. but i promise you that this is the truth. it's there for all to see.
imho, the only way that we can reconcile this new orientation is if we deny the infallibility of the Councils. if that's what you or Eugene believe, i'd have a lot more respect if you just went ahead and said it.
i'm sorry if that sounds harsh.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
if you can find it (invincible ignorance) somewhere pre- Pius IX, then show me. let's trace it further back if that's possible...Good point, Ian. Just because a Pope says something prior to Vatican II doesn't mean that traditionalists must accept it as orthodox. Pius IX is the first Pope to suggest that those who are not Catholic due to invincible ignorance can be saved. Why had no Pope or Council mentioned this in the previous 1800 years of the Church's existence? And how can this be reconciled with established Church dogmas on Original Sin, Baptism, and No Salvation Outside the Church?
If Pius IX is referring to baptized Protestants then I can see a possible reconciliation. But other than that, no.
imho, the only way that we can reconcile this new orientation is if we deny the infallibility of the Councils
That's what I've done, and more. With great anguish and sense of loss, I've concluded that the Catholic Church died in the 1960's. That's not supposed to happen. It's an article of faith that it cannot happen. But it did happen. And once I finally admitted to myself that the Catholic Church had died, my faith died, too.
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 03, 2005.
Our authority speaks: . . . that the notion of invincible ignorance is trashed by all the great Doctors and Popes. Google it -- ! ! !Ignorance in the world doesn't EXIST! Google told Yancy. ''Everybody can see the truth, Google asked everyone, If you have no idea what the Holy Gospel is, raise your hand--
And nobody in the world raised his hand !'' -- -----Would GOOGLE say this if it isn't TRUE???
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
scared of Google, Eugene?!?!?!?!seems so.....
recap, the printing press fuelled the Renaissance and the Reformation.
serious point, therefore - the restoration of Our Church may well depend upon Google.
of course, you have that old pamphlett from Bishop Sheen. you don't need Google, do you?!?!?!?!
now -- for the umpteenth time Eugene --- where did Invincible Ignorance come from? who invented it? what did the Great Scholars think of it?
how did it get confused with BoD?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
Bonz Cousin,
Your question: ''And how can this be reconciled with established Church dogmas on Original Sin, Baptism, and No Salvation Outside the Church?'' The first two are articles of faith; dogma is a defined truth. The latter one is a dogma of the Church.It hasn't been abrogated by any means. We all believe today there is no salvation except in the Church of the apostles. YOU keep imagining that dogma as: ''Membership exclusively entitled for the Visible Church---- Or no membership at all.'' That's untenable, considering an even GREATER and more undeniable truth: God's Infinite Mercy. With God nothing is impossible. He can make a soul a NEW member of Christ's Holy Church by simply willing it so. Or, He can reject the same soul.
You're scandalized by acceptance of anything except the letter of the law, only written permission into the Catholic Church. That Baptismal Certificate (you since tore up).
God can write one, with His guarantee; and the soul enters the Church whether you accept it or not. God is our KING.
This means the dogma is not violated, but upheld, as God willed it.
WHY? Who knows? maybe there was no other way to save a poor soul, who was ultimately repentent of all sin, rejected evil and LOVED God in his own way. ------Could Almighty God perceive this for a fact? Absolutely. Is God infinitely loving and merciful? It's an article of faith nobody would question. Does He damn souls who truly don't deserve it? I don't see how; He is infinitely JUST and knows everything;
If it happened to a single soul, He would be UN-Merciful and UN-Just; theologically impossible.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
Ian-- How do you arrive at these inane implausibilities?''serious point, therefore - the restoration of Our Church may well depend upon Google.''
You maintain there's a ''restoration'' necessary. Martin Luther and Henry VIII gave it a ''reformation'' But on board Peter's boat Our Lord awakened from sleep to calm the tempest; he asked the apostles (who really expected the boat to sink) ''Where is your faith?''
GOOGLE to ''restore our Church? You're joking, right? You're not that dumb; come on!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
Eugenenow -- for the umpteenth time Eugene --- where did Invincible Ignorance come from? who invented it? what did the Great Scholars think of it?
how did it get confused with BoD?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
Eugene:"Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith."
St Thomas Aquinas.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
What exactly is it you're trying to prove? Do you believe in God?Is God able to discern who is and who isn't in mortal sin? Or has it got to be defined in dogmas before He can forgive a repentent sinner?
If YOU never heard of some fact-- not one clue-- are you still able to know it? Or are you till now ignorant of that fact? Do you have to consult Google to understand my questions? Or, could you just ''wing it'' for this one post?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
I hope I'm not going too fast for you; When you've answered my last question (please) consider this---- >>>>"Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith." St Thomas Aquinas.------------Are heretics permitted to repent of a heresy and do penance? If so, can they confess the faith once more and be absolved by the Church? Will St Thomas Aquinas object?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
i'm not the heretic, Eugene.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
Did someone say that if you dont know the law you cant be judged by it?.I heard a story of an Irish Saint, Columba maybe, who could prophesy about sometimes small matters, one being about an old pagan he knew who had died but whom he believed had been saved because of his natural disposition for goodness.
I think when the Apostle asked 'why Lord, who can be saved!?' the answer that, for God, nothing is impossible, should take care of our doubts and maybe when he also said no one comes to Me except that the Father draws them might loosen the 'invincibly ignorant' knot,-you say the words and God draws those He is going to draw. Its His show.
-- m (dot4@hotmail.co.uk), March 03, 2005.
Excellent, m (dot4--) You understand perfectly. As for Ian:-------- ''i'm not the heretic, Eugene.-- Ian (ib@vertifgo
You're not an authority, you mean. No authority on the Church or on heresy or on God's perfections. All you seem to be is a Devil's Advocate.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
now -- for the umpteenth time Eugene --- where did "Invincible Ignorance" come from?who invented it?
what did the Great Scholars of the Church think of it?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
It's a concept, Yancy. The Catholic Church understands it; and faithful Catholics see the rationale. Only you come here to question it. Go look in Google; and counter it if you can, with a better concept.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
now -- for the umpteenth time Eugene --- where did "Invincible Ignorance" come from? who invented it?what did the Great Scholars of the Church think of it?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
Yancy:
Once before a while back,I informed you that you will NOT be my cross-examiner. You aren't prosecuting me; I'm not in irons. I have no need to respond to you even after the Grumpteenth time. --If you need answers, go to Google.com like a good researcher. Come back and report to the forum if you find a cause for jubilation. I already have the basic knowledge you seem to want to refute but CAN'T. You just can't cut it, Yancy.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
i know that Eugene. you refuse to research.but, for the "Grumpteenth" time --- where did "Invincible Ignorance" come from? who invented it?
what did the Great Scholars of the Church think of it?
if you cannot substantiate a response to these questions, isn't it all just hot air? truly?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
You need my substantiating? Go to the Catholic Church. I never made up doctrine and I never will.You call a Catholic teaching hot air. I call your presence in this forum insignificant at best. What have you ever contributed?
If you suppose that obstinate repetition will carry yout argument to success, go on asking the same question. I ignore the grumpteenth and I'll ignore the next seventy-seven. You have your Google.com; carry on.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
OK. for the "Grumpteen and 77th" time --- where did "Invincible Ignorance" come from? who invented it?what did the Great Scholars of the Church think of it?
if you cannot substantiate a response to these questions, isn't it all just hot air? truly?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.
(please) consider this---- >>>>"Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith." St Thomas Aquinas.------------ Are heretics permitted to repent of a heresy and do penance? If so, can they confess the faith once more and be absolved by the Church? Will St Thomas Aquinas object?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
pre- Pius IXInteresting, these guys are so quick to quote Piux IX and HIS Vatican Council I, but anything of his that goes against their understanding of Church Teaching is worthless trash so it seems.
This is why you guys are not worth the any time of day to be given in an attempt to bring you back into full communion, you are closed to Truth.
I shake the dust from my feet.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.
"I shake the dust from my feet."Alright. It's time to say the Rosary anyways.
It's been a fun read.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.
This is why you guys are not worth the any time of day to be given in an attempt to bring you back into full communion, you are closed to Truth.This was said by a priest during Lent? What a shame!
-- wishineverreadthis (noname@nomail.com), March 04, 2005.
What he said was he's leaving. Don't put words in his mouth. (It really is a useless task; these fellows are only playing games here. And in LENT ! Shame on them ! )
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
"...an attempt to bring you back into full communion..."Full communion with the Catholic Church? Does communion with the Catholic Church admit of variation of degree?
I'm curious as to what the percentage might be for each person. Perhaps 56% for one, maybe, 89% for another? Who really knows. We need a Communometer.
I'm in Communion with the Catholic Church. This may cause some right- wing liberals a certain amount of grief. Why, I don't know. I'm a nobody anyways, no one of consequence.
Ya'll done got stuck with the trads, though, on the whole. They're staying put, in the Church, where they belong. They will not be moved. The situation isn't as bad as it seems; it will grow on you. Trust me.
Dig heels in, keep Faith.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.
Dear Emerald:
I'm hoping that Friday you can take a minute; peruse the thread, ''What Is the Fate of Unbaptized Babies, Fr. Paul?''Interesting development on Thursday eve; your cohort Pete quoted a Church Canon for me; to knock Baptism of Desire. Would you mind telling him what it really says? I think that of you, Ian & Pete
You're likely the most literate. These boys really NEED you, Ems. They're both babes in the woods. Tell them when to speak and when to shush & leave it to a journeyman Catholic (who knows how to read English).
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
They don't need me. They need the Catholic Church.Looks like they've found it. The rest is mostly hard work and perseverance.
Trent says both are necessary, btw.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.
Genelet's go over there and follow that thread up.
the sad thing is that i have posted that extract countless times here. as have others. yet you react as if it's the first time you have ever seen it. what does that mean?
PS it certainly **cannot** mean what you think it does.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.
We already knew this truth; the Catholic Church has taught it long since. I quoted much the same from Archbishop Sheehan's apologetics and doctrine textbook last month; and you rejected HIM. He has an imprimatur; you cats don't. I react with surprise now, because ONE OF YOUR OWN COHORTS FAILED TO SEE THE PLAIN MEANING OF HIS OWN PASTE-UP! HE THOUGHT IT RENOUNCED BAPTISM OF DESIRE!!!! I was far from surprised seeing it as a Church teaching. It's not ''the first time you have ever seen it.'' Don't be a fool.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
"I quoted much the same from Archbishop Sheehan's apologetics and doctrine textbook last month;...."i remember that well. you promised something very special, very old, very authoritative. then you copy-typed something from a book written in the 50's.
...by an Archbishop.
tht doesn't really stack up to well to Ecumenical Councils, though, does it?!?!?!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.
I give him due respect; he was saying every Mass in Latin, he was no upstart priest. The text I quoted was published in the reign of Pope Pius XII;So his textbook, for CATHOLICS was and still is, an excellent teaching source. Why would you ''stack'' your distorted interpretations of Council Lit against a conservative Archbishop's imprimatured doctrinal source? Because you think you're an authority?
I proved once and for all that I was showing everyone here CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, and not my impression of things. You come around giving YOUR IMPRESSION of dogma. If you had any modesty you'd hang up your doctrinal gloves, Canvasback.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
"I give him due respect; he was saying every Mass in Latin,..."so what?
"..he was no upstart priest."
thanks goodness.
"The text I quoted was published in the reign of Pope Pius XII;.."
so what?
"So his textbook, for CATHOLICS was and still is, an excellent teaching source."
non sequitur.
"Why would you ''stack'' your distorted interpretations of Council Lit against a conservative Archbishop's imprimatured doctrinal source?"
because they say very different things.
"Because you think you're an authority?"
no. the Councils are authority. some well-meaning, but erroneous, archbishop is a blot on the landscape, frankly.
"I proved once and for all that I was showing everyone here CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, and not my impression of things."
wrong. you put an Archbishop before the Councils. youprove yr ignorance and your arrogance - though not necessarily in equal measure. you decide on the mix.
"You come around giving YOUR IMPRESSION of dogma. If you had any modesty you'd hang up your doctrinal gloves, Canvasback."
modesty? read some of your own posts.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.
I proved once and for all that I was showing everyone here CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, and not my impression of things.''wrong. you put an Archbishop before the Councils.''
A CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP, Yancy. Who do you think sits in those councils? BISHOPS. Didn't you KNOW??? And this is humble pie for you. So you HAVE to come back abusively at me. I don't care, I forgive you.
You come around giving YOUR IMPRESSION of dogma. ONLY YOUR IMPRESSION of what a Conciliar document proves, Mister. No authority to teach here whatsoever!
ANY archbishop on earth has more authority than you have. More than me, too-- But all I do is follow their teachings, which are the Church's doctrines. Try that sometime, instead of wasting your eyesight reading what you'll never interpret competently.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
really!how come you ignore the Pope when it suits you, you old blaggard?!?!?
just who do you think you are convincing, Cardinal?!?!
tipping yr cap to the priests, hollering at the rest of the world [all that old crud about backdoors for protestants], feigning obedience to the See, sending Baby Jesus to sleep, that "filial" relationship with the Pope,.......
truly, it's shocking, given yr self-appointed position here in this prominent forum --- BUT you do make me laugh. heartily. truly you do.
not good. in the long run. imho.
anyways, Bishop Sheen. he may singularly amount to an ecumenical council of the Sheenites, but that's all. get real, Cardinal Chavez.
great posts. really funny at times. but little substance. 2/10.
sleep well tonight old boy. and be sure to say "hello" to Baby Jesus for me before you nod off.
seriously, have a good night.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.
The poor guy is exhausted from useless carping. His arguments have all flopped and now he's furious.I'm really sorry, Ian. You auditioned and came out badly. You're a good Catholic, you just chose a subject you don't understand. Ciao!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
Eugenehave you ever seen those boxers that start punching the air ------- after the fight has been lost and won.
have you ever notived how the guy that loses always does the most air-punching?
ever wondered why?
....worst bit is.....this is not some game....you are actually damning people - if foolish enough to read your unreserched personal opinions -- by your overt rejection of the Councils.
i keep saying this.
you are a serious gambler dude.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.
The work is over, Ian. You need rest now; and I already said Ciao. You & Pete go drown your sorrows in a common pitcher. Hasta la vista, Bebe . . .
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
"ANY archbishop on earth has more authority than you have."But no archbishop conclude anything which does not square with declared and defined Catholic truths.
Archbishops have a duty of keeping the Faith whole and undefiled. Especially so, in that they have a flock to tend to. If they fail to do so, this is no excuse for the flock to follow suit; both shepherd and flock will be called to give an accounting.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.
''But no archbishop [can] conclude anything which does not square with declared and defined Catholic truths.''---------------That's not what I said. I said as regards Ian; he's completely lacking in authority -- or in credibility compared with practically every Catholic archbishop.
Furthermore ''concluding'' isn't forbidden at all. TEACHING is governed by the above conditions. And the source I (with complete confidence) quoted is an orthodox teaching source, written faithfully early in the last century by a Catholic archbishop. It was good enough for every Catholic prep school in Great Britain. For an unqualified autonomous Catholic in 2005 to dismiss it out of hand is plainly disrespectful. Ian did it for only one reason: the work (that single subject, Baptism) clashes with his personal agenda. ALL YOUR agendas.
I shouldn't argue with such Catholic pseudo-theologians. They can be obstinate but they're in error. Now I just feel sorry for you guys. If you don't know what you're talking about, here you came to the wrong place. However, I respect faithful Catholics. When you DO know what's correct you'll get no disrespect from me.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.
"Roman Catholics ... are attacked ... by the devil of Traditionalist heretics." -- Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M.
-- (m@r.k), March 04, 2005.
Eugenelet's go back and see how you've solved the conundrum:
"innocent babies don't go to Heaven because of Original Sin, yet Moslems and Jews, who live in Original Sin, and possibly a ton of Actual Sin, can. the innocent babies, clearly, cannot be invincibly ignorant, can they?"
now, show me where you have dealt with this one.
or this one:
"Father, you might find that the notion of invincible ignorance is trashed by all the great Doctors and Popes. Google it and read for yourself. the reason: "Original Sin". if you can find it somewhere pre- Pius IX, then show me. let's trace it further back if that's possible....."
or this one from Bonzo:
"Good point, Ian. Just because a Pope says something prior to Vatican II doesn't mean that traditionalists must accept it as orthodox. Pius IX is the first Pope to suggest that those who are not Catholic due to invincible ignorance can be saved. Why had no Pope or Council mentioned this in the previous 1800 years of the Church's existence? And how can this be reconciled with established Church dogmas on Original Sin, Baptism, and No Salvation Outside the Church?"
you haven't even come close to answering these by use of Catholic teaching, Eugene. let's re-focus.
how do you do it?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.
Do you deny the infallible teachings of the Catholic faith? You don't? If you don't; why do you insist God can do something UNJUST?Why do you think God reveals his love for men in the Holy Bible?
Why do you condemn those whom God has yet to condemn?
Why do you doubt in God's infinite Mercy?
Why do you doubt Jesus Christ's words?
Why do you think you're an authority here?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.
So here I was waiting for this priest to answer on this subject and he bails?????? And says that the folks are not worthy? Whoa. And here I thought that everyone was "worthy" ..guess I was way wrong on that one.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.
Cut Fr. Paul some slack, Lesley. He is a parish priest, and he has lots of duties. He doesn't have unlimited free time to waste on pseudo-traditional heretics. He saw that he had to "shake the dust from his feet."
-- (Bending@The.Knee), March 05, 2005.
Dear "bending".. We all have lives..busy ones. Many folks here spend a lot of time answering and re-answering "anon", sqda and "faith"..at times, ad nauseum..the point I was making was to the question of "worthiness". Everyone is "worthy"..isn't that the very essence of the entire discussion?????? Ah well, perhaps not.If we only spend our precious time preaching to the choir, as it were, what good do we do? But then, to each his own. You have your opinion and I have mine.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.
"I said as regards Ian; he's completely lacking in authority..."Of course he is. That's why it's so impressive to watch, on this end, how he very dutifully abides by the dogmatic declarations of Holy Mother Church. Instead of falling for the sophistry of new- speak theological opinions.
As long as these people stay close to Our Lady and close to Christ crucified, and close to Him in the Blessed Sacrament in their private and personal lives, nothing can touch them.
Nothing.
Above the incredulous garbage that passes off as faith anymore, it's good to see reasons for hope. I'm sure Jesus and Mary will care well for Ian and Lesley and many others here.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 06, 2005.
Eugene"Do you deny the infallible teachings of the Catholic faith?"
which infallible teachings are you talking about? specifically, please. isn't this the crux of the issue?
"You don't? If you don't; why do you insist God can do something UNJUST?"
Eugene, you will notice that i rarely post without offering supporting materials - typically Dogmatic definitions from Popes or Councils, or stuff from St Thomas or other of the other "greats" of the Church.
in doing so, i demonstrate that i am not offering my personal opinions, but, rather, am communicating the Catholic Faith.
if you find anything that i do post to be unpalatable, do not shoot the messenger. furthermore, post something other than your own personal opinions.
Bishop Sheen, for all the good things he may have done, cannot hold a torch to the Councils or Popes, or St Thomas or St Augustine: a fortiori, Cardinal Chavez.
"Why do you think God reveals his love for men in the Holy Bible?"
..because He wants us to know that He loves us.
"Why do you condemn those whom God has yet to condemn?"
see above. these perceived "condemnations" are made by the Church, Her Popes, and Her great scholars.
"Why do you doubt in God's infinite Mercy?"
why do you think you have a complete God-like handle on justice and mercy? isn't that rather big-headed?
the mere fact that He might have mercy on even one human being is already demonstrates His infinite mercy. that's part of the problem i see you having.
you must ask yourself why we were ALL chucked out of Paradise, not just Adam and Eve? why do we ALL enter life in Original Sin, when the sin was of Adam - and of a pretty darned innocent Adam at that? where is the mercy in that?
well, we know that God is infinite mercy but we do not necessarily understand what that means, do we.
St Thomas argues that, in God, there are no passions. God's mercy and justice oprate on an altogether different level from our own sense of justice and mercy.
"Why do you doubt Jesus Christ's words?"
i don't. do you? i would, for the record, regard your personal interpretation of Scripture as suspect. i am bound to follow the Church and her Councils and Popes and great scholars. Bishop Sheen, sadly for you, is not really in the picture.
"Why do you think you're an authority here?"
excuse me!! you're the fellow that runs around accusing people of all kinds of things without ever backing up what you say. claiming "victory" as if this was a debating competition. failing ever to post anything authoritative that supports yr own personal opinions.
if it helps, think of me as a bridge between your good self and Catholic Truth. a kind of unappreciated research assistant. i do all the donkey work, presenting you with long tracts from the Popes and the Councils. you bark a lot in return.
one day you might start reading some of the stuff that is posted here.
now, i've answered a lot of questions here. you answer me this: why have you never read Trent of Florence or Vat II for that matter? isn't that a very dangerous strategy, especially in your role as vigilante in these threads?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.
Lesley, I think that you misunderstood what the priest was saying, and I think that he used a certain word ("worth") just as a contrast to an earlier word ("worthless"). I'm sure that he doesn't really consider the pseudo-trads' excommunicated souls not "worth" saving. Here is what he frustratedly wrote in his last post:Interesting, these guys are so quick to quote Piux IX and HIS Vatican Council I, but anything of his that goes against their understanding of Church Teaching is worthless trash so it seems. This is why you guys are not worth the time of day to be given in an attempt to bring you back into full communion. You are closed to Truth.
See what I mean, Lesley? He was just saying that, as long as they remain "closed to Truth," they do not deserve his attention. Jesus says to do what the priest did, "shake the dust" and move on to a town that is open to the Gospel.
-- (Bending@The.Knee), March 06, 2005.
Yancy,
I'm not a vigilante nor a Cardinal. Just another faithful Catholic, thank you. I'm not quasi- schismatic either. But YOU are. And nothing you quoted of the Church's Popes', great scholars or documents of past Councils contradicts what I say about Holy Baptism. (It's your contention, but you're wrong. --Again.) You're on the road to Schism, Yancy.)Just asked you, ''Why do you condemn those whom God has yet to condemn?'' and you hide behind the Pope's skirts.
''See above. these perceived condemnations are made by the Church, Her Popes, and Her great scholars.'' ----------No, those great men condemn nothing like Baptism of Desire, or of Blood. They would have to condemn Christ! These concepts related to the dogma of Baptism come to us from Jesus Christ; as archbishop Sheehan tells Catholics in 1954.
"Why do you doubt in God's infinite Mercy?" --And you reply: ''You think you have a complete God-like handle on justice and mercy? isn't that rather big-headed?'' A trivial answer, explaining nothing. IS GOD INFINITELY MERCIFUL-- ? ? ?
Then explain how YOU can suggest He has been otherwise. Because you indicated that over and over. Don't try to say the Popes said so, or Thomas Aquinas. Admit your have no answer. You never knew that ''the Letter kills and the Spirit gives Life.'' To you, Thomas Aquinas has sealed the fate of millions of souls. They must be in Hell! God isn't even particularly interested, according to the written ''proof'' you bring here. And remember: I haven't contradicted the teachings of any Catholic scholar or Father or Pope. I've only contradicted YOUR conclusions, which are false.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.
Here's my "take" on the whole thing..Jesus said that He would be with the Church..He hasn't gone anywhere..EVEN IF the men in the Church have gone off on a tangent..so what? The Church is still the CHURCH and always will be. My jumping up and down and hollering will not change anything..only the Holy Spirit, in HIS own time, will change things IF they need changing.Meanwhile, the world continues on as it always has, NOT our primary residence, NOT our goal to live here forever. My role in this existence is to love God with my whole heart and my whole mind and to love my neighbor as myself..to be a good and holy wife and mother.To live my life in such a way that is pleasing to God and hopefully to inspire others to seek Him.
Theologians, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. share most of the same goals as I do and some of their own. I'm a wife and Mother..they are accountable to God for leading His Church.I'm accountable to Him for following..Amen..see you at Mass.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005.
Eugeneyou must have a PhD is dodging the question!!!
here's something from above that you might wish to address:
"you must ask yourself why we were ALL chucked out of Paradise, not just Adam and Eve? why do we ALL enter life in Original Sin, when the sin was of Adam - and of a pretty darned innocent Adam at that?"
how do you fit this into your own personal take on God's Infinite justice and mercy?
i've answered loads of questions from you, Cardinal. now please reciprocate and answer **one** question from me.
that's a pretty good trade for you.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.
Ian, Son:
Let me assure you absolutely: I have the correct answer to that question. What's more it will not be MY answer but the Catholic Church's.But what's the use? I would have to give you the stock answer and definition of Original Sin, the fall of the human race, our felix culpa etc., etc.,
And it would necessarily reflect the same views Archbishop Sheehan and the rest of God's people share with me.
Since you reject this and only want esoteric scratches for your itching, I'll save myself the trouble and say, CIAO! Pax et bonum, Yancy!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.