Anti Catholic...Catholics!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ni8_shadow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

ni8_shadow

Guest
These guys have entire hour long videos “proving” why Benedict 16 and JP2 were not Catholic and were responsible for many heresies and even apostasies!!! The evidence is compelling though. Any sites or literature refute this stuff?

The first two videos are exocisms or whatever…but the ones towards the end are the ones that seriously disturb me and my faith.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/watch_our_videos_3.html

The video on Benedict 16 is what i watched and it protrays many things that Benedict has done or approves of is contrary to Vatican 1.

This is bugging the hell outta. Help me with some refutaions.

Thanks
 
The Dimond brothers are pretty “tinfoil hat.” They are similar to other anti-Catholic fundamentalists in that they take things out of its proper context and then twist it so it contradicts their twisted interpretation of prior things.

They hold to the error of Fr. Feeney, which was condemned by the Holy Office in the 1940s that one must be explicitly Catholic to be saved and therefore judge everything contrary to this position as heresy.

Pray for them. Their bitterness will destroy their soul unless they be converted.
 
What about the statements from Vatican 1 that state you HAVE to be Catholic to be saved? What is the context of that statement? How would I explain that statement to a Muslim or Jew?

Thanks for the quick reply!!
 
ni8_shadow said:
What about the statements from Vatican 1 that state you HAVE to be Catholic to be saved. What is the context of that statement. How would I explain that statement to a Muslim or Jew?

Thanks for the quick reply!!
Click to expand...
Here’s the document by the Holy Office in the 1940s which should help you understand Catholic teaching on the phrase “There is no salvaion outside the Church” (which remains a dogma of the faith):

matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixe.html

The same Pope (Pius IX) that approved that Council, also stated this:

“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”
“Quanto Conficiamur Moerore” (August 10, 1863)]

and this:

“It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is [1Jn 3:2] shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
[Allocution: “Singulari Quadam” (December 9, 1854)]

The Catechism of St. Pius X said this:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top