Question for the Sedevacantist: stay on topic!!

[mgrfin]

It appears that he did teach universal salvation:

Can a soul that is “united to Christ forever” go to hell?

1. Please hi-light the ‘heretical’ teaching
2. Please show where it is a definitive statement.
3. Please show what definitive teaching it contradicts.

thanks

peace

 

[catharina]

1. Please hi-light the ‘heretical’ teaching
2. Please show where it is a definitive statement.
3. Please show what definitive teaching it contradicts.

thanks

peace

This is a pseudo issue presented by SFD (as you know). He clings to a notion that this question has relevance. Can a soul that is united to Christ forever go to hell? He is subverting a statement of Pope John Paul II from this ~ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery ~ to this: A soul that is united to Christ forever can not go to hell. SFD has intermingled subject and object. In fact, Christ unites Himself but man must ACCEPT that union. Our acceptance/rejection does not admit or discount Christ’s action of union. Christ’s action of union is available to us IF we accept it. In SFD’s view of this, the free will of man is irrelevant, almost as if it’s has been abolished. I can’t understand how he can’t see this. Maybe he does see it but won’t admit it.

 

[mgrfin]

This is a pseudo issue presented by SFD (as you know). He clings to a notion that this question has relevance. Can a soul that is united to Christ forever go to hell? He is subverting a statement of Pope John Paul II from this ~ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery ~ to this: A soul that is united to Christ forever can not go to hell. SFD has intermingled subject and object. In fact, Christ unites Himself but man must ACCEPT that union. Our acceptance/rejection does not admit or discount Christ’s action of union. Christ’s action of union is available to us IF we accept it. In SFD’s view of this, the free will of man is irrelevant, almost as if it’s has been abolished. I can’t understand how he can’t see this. Maybe he does see it but won’t admit it.

I’m very old fashioned. I just love to see the right words when the Pope speaks infallibly:

“…we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that…”

Then we know what it is that we are to believe with divine and catholic faith.

peace

 

[jim28]

This is a pseudo issue presented by SFD (as you know). He clings to a notion that this question has relevance. Can a soul that is united to Christ forever go to hell? He is subverting a statement of Pope John Paul II from this ~ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery ~ to this: A soul that is united to Christ forever can not go to hell. SFD has intermingled subject and object. In fact, Christ unites Himself but man must ACCEPT that union. Our acceptance/rejection does not admit or discount Christ’s action of union. Christ’s action of union is available to us IF we accept it. In SFD’s view of this, the free will of man is irrelevant, almost as if it’s has been abolished. I can’t understand how he can’t see this. Maybe he does see it but won’t admit it.

Where does JPII say that it is dependant on acceptance by free will.
Christ united to each man means exactly what it says. SFD is pointing out the only conclusion we can draw from his statement is: if Christ is united to each man forever, then each man must be in heaven because it would definitely be blasphemy to say that Christ is united to people in hell also.

Please explain away this quote from JPII:
John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985:
“The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”

I’m sure you know the difference between the Sufficiency and the Efficacy of Christ’s blood given that you already stated that you know about free will.

Do not give me the weak non-argument “it is taken out of context” and “this is not what he means.”

 

[catharina]

I’m very old fashioned. I just love to see the right words when the Pope speaks infallibly:

“…we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that…”

Then we know what it is that we are to believe with divine and catholic faith.

peace

Coincidence? No - but I’m rather old-fashioned myself. This forum is so unusual since it’s not everyday that one encounters people who think they have the right to declare a Pope a heretic or to decide Peter’s chair is empty. What an education it’s been to encounter THIS type of traditionalist. Who would imagine … ?

 

[catharina]

Where does JPII say that it is dependant on acceptance by free will.
Christ united to each man means exactly what it says. SFD is pointing out the only conclusion we can draw from his statement is: if Christ is united to each man forever, then each man must be in heaven because it would definitely be blasphemy to say that Christ is united to people in hell also.

Please explain away this quote from JPII:
John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985:
“The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”

I’m sure you know the difference between the Sufficiency and the Efficacy of Christ’s blood given that you already stated that you know about free will.

Do not give me the weak non-argument “it is taken out of context” and “this is not what he means.”

Sorry that your mood is so downbeat but I see nothing different from what I learned as a 5 yr-old in 1950. JESUS DIED FOR ALL. Jesus loves all. If you see this ~ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery ~ in any other way, then that’s your problem, isn’t it?.

 

[jim28]

I’m very old fashioned. I just love to see the right words when the Pope speaks infallibly:

“…we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that…”

Then we know what it is that we are to believe with divine and catholic faith.

peace

Here you go:

“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, *, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.” Vatican I, Session III (ratified by Pope Pius IX in 1870).

You see MGRFIN, this teaching of the infallible Vatican I makes a distinction between a solemn judgment and the ordinary teaching authority. Even when a pope is teaching the entire Church about something that is divinely revealed, without making a definition or solemn judgment, the faithful cannot dissent in even these instances. The ordinary magisterium is infallible and we must believe it with “divine and Catholic faith”.*

 

[louey]

Coincidence? No - but I’m rather old-fashioned myself. This forum is so unusual since it’s not everyday that one encounters people who think they have the right to declare a Pope a heretic or to decide Peter’s chair is empty. What an education it’s been to encounter THIS type of traditionalist. Who would imagine … ?

It is not only the right of every Catholic to denounce a heretic, it is his DUTY. There is no such thing as “traditionalist” there is only Catholic, and either you are a Catholic or you are not. A Catholic is one who believes in the Catholic Faith, whole and inviolate. It only takes one heresy to fall out of the Catholic Church. All those who believe the heretical documents of VII are outside the Catholic Church; they are not Catholic.

 

[mgrfin]

jim28:
“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all bearing witness in his own time.” (1 Tim 2: 5-6)

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotten Son, for those who believe in Him may not perish, but may have life everylasting” (John 3:16)

“And we have seen and do testify, that the Father has sent his Son to be **Savior of the world”. **(1JOhn 4:14)

Thankfully, the Holy Father reads the Scriptures and teaches them to all of us.

peace

 

[catharina]

It is not only the right of every Catholic to denounce a heretic, it is his DUTY. There is no such thing as “traditionalist” there is only Catholic, and either you are a Catholic or you are not. A Catholic is one who believes in the Catholic Faith, whole and inviolate. It only takes one heresy to fall out of the Catholic Church. All those who believe the heretical documents of VII are outside the Catholic Church; they are not Catholic.

Ah, louey, louey, louey. I’m Catholic. If/when a Holy Father declares something to be heretical, I’ll listen. Until then, perhaps you stand with Jim who describes his faith on the MHF thread ~~~ Benedict is not a pope. Those who are saying that he is a heretic are not heretics themselves. They are very much informed. ~~~ Needless to say, I disagree.

 

[catharina]

“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all bearing witness in his own time.” (1 Tim 2: 5-6)

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotten Son, for those who believe in Him may not perish, but may have life everylasting” (John 3:16)

“And we have seen and do testify, that the Father has sent his Son to be **Savior of the world”. **(1JOhn 4:14)

Thankfully, the Holy Father reads the Scriptures and teaches them to all of us.

peace

Amen to that.

 

[mgrfin]

Here you go:

You see MGRFIN, this teaching of the infallible Vatican I makes a distinction between a solemn judgment and the ordinary teaching authority. Even when a pope is teaching the entire Church about something that is divinely revealed, without making a definition or solemn judgment, the faithful cannot dissent in even these instances. The ordinary magisterium is infallible and we must believe it with “divine and Catholic faith”.

Yes, what is to be believed is something he teaches which has been divinely revealed (already) - no one disputes this. But if it has not been divinely revealed and he doesn’t define it, then I don’t have to believe it. So, all these ‘private’ and general audiences are nice, so are the Bulls, and Apostolic Constitutions, but they are not infallible unless they follow the doctrine on Infallibility.

Besides the dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius” chapter 3 of 1 Vat, this was modified in the light of “Lumen Gentium” 25, and “Dei Verbum” 10 of Second Vatican.

I’d love it if you guys would just read the concilar documents emanating from Vathican 2. I realize you can’t do that - you are boycotting the Holy Spirit for some reason I haven’t figured out.

peace

 

[jim28]

Sorry that your mood is so downbeat but I see nothing different from what I learned as a 5 yr-old in 1950. JESUS DIED FOR ALL. Jesus loves all.

Jesus did die for all and yes loves all, but in the end He does not SAVE ALL, like this teaching from JPII states.

If you see this ~ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery ~ in any other way, then that’s your problem, isn’t it?.

It’s my problem yes and I chose to do something about it, reject it.
It is your problem too but you choose to accept his heretical teaching.

 

[mgrfin]

Jesus did die for all and yes loves all, but in the end He does not SAVE ALL, like this teaching from JPII states.

QUOTE]

Tell us something that is not contained in the penny catechism. Of course, He died for All, but All did not accept it. So all are not saved, because we have the free will to reject his Salvific Act.

What else don’t you understand?

"Erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum no cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filos Dei fieri, his, qui credunt in nomine ejus. (John 1)

peace

peace

 

[catharina]

Jesus did die for all and yes loves all, but in the end He does not SAVE ALL, like this teaching from JPII states.

It’s my problem yes and I chose to do something about it, reject it.
It is your problem too but you choose to accept his heretical teaching.

… and what a problem. You impute meaning to the Holy Father that was not indicated by him and then YOU reject him as heretical. God inspired YOU to stand against the Holy Father and all of tradition that says he’s correct ~ even if you can’t/won’t understand ~ and then you end by declaring him to be a heretic? What an ending for you.

 

[jim28]

“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all bearing witness in his own time.” (1 Tim 2: 5-6)

He came to save all, but He does not save all.

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotten Son, for those who believe in Him may not perish, but may have life everylasting” (John 3:16)

So as long as you believe that Christ existed, you won’t perish?

“And we have seen and do testify, that the Father has sent his Son to be **Savior of the world”. **(1JOhn 4:14)

He is the Savior of the world but does not Save the whole world.

Thankfully, the Holy Father reads the Scriptures and teaches them to all of us.

Thank the Lord that mgrfin is not the interpreter of scripture. If he was then we would have to accept God’s Scriptures here as meaning universal salvation. Mgrfin says that these scripture passages mean the same as JPII’s: “This Blood Reaches ALL and SAVES ALL”. Is there nothing humans can do to change that, even if they reject Christ?

 

[jim28]

Yes, what is to be believed is something he teaches which has been divinely revealed (already) - no one disputes this. But if it has not been divinely revealed and he doesn’t define it, then I don’t have to believe it. So, all these ‘private’ and general audiences are nice, so are the Bulls, and Apostolic Constitutions, but they are not infallible unless they follow the doctrine on Infallibility.

Besides the dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius” chapter 3 of 1 Vat, this was modified in the light of “Lumen Gentium” 25, and “Dei Verbum” 10 of Second Vatican.

I’d love it if you guys would just read the concilar documents emanating from Vathican 2. I realize you can’t do that - you are boycotting the Holy Spirit for some reason I haven’t figured out.

peace

Why would we try to prove something Catholic by using something non-catholic (VII).
I’ve read VII a few times and if the Holy Spirit guided those documents then the Catholic Church has contradicted itself.

 

[jim28]

jim28;3361290:

Jesus did die for all and yes loves all, but in the end He does not SAVE ALL, like this teaching from JPII states.

QUOTE]

Tell us something that is not contained in the penny catechism. Of course, He died for All, but All did not accept it. So all are not saved, because we have the free will to reject his Salvific Act.

What else don’t you understand?

"Erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum no cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filos Dei fieri, his, qui credunt in nomine ejus. (John 1)

peace

peace

You just admitted that Christ’s blood does not “reach all and save all”.
So you disagree with JPII on this one?

 

[mgrfin]

He came to save all, but He does not save all.

So as long as you believe that Christ existed, you won’t perish?

He is the Savior of the world but does not Save the whole world.

Thank the Lord that mgrfin is not the interpreter of scripture. If he was then we would have to accept God’s Scriptures here as meaning universal salvation. Mgrfin says that these scripture passages mean the same as JPII’s: “This Blood Reaches ALL and SAVES ALL”. Is there nothing humans can do to change that, even if they reject Christ?

Scripsi quod scripsi.

peace

 

[jim28]

… and what a problem. You impute meaning to the Holy Father that was not indicated by him and then YOU reject him as heretical. God inspired YOU to stand against the Holy Father and all of tradition that says he’s correct ~ even if you can’t/won’t understand ~ and then you end by declaring him to be a heretic? What an ending for you.

JPII did not give an orthodox interpretation for his statement. So we are to take him at face value of his statement.
God inspired me to stand against a false claimant to the Catholic Church’s Papacy.