What must we do to be saved?

[EENS]

“Pope Pius XII most certainly DID want to condemn Feeney’s teachings.”

Well, I forgot that there are those who believe Masons were really behind this and Vatican II.

If you know any history, you know who ran the committee to “reform” the Liturgy (Bugnini). If you know a little more history you know that he was found out to be a freemason. Of course, though, in trying to defend the indefensible, you will act as if these historical facts are just merely made up by those who want to lead others away from the Truth. Is that what you think of the Bible, too?

God bless.

 

[Stylite]

EENS:

If you know any history, you know who ran the committee to “reform” the Liturgy (Bugnini). If you know a little more history you know that he was found out to be a freemason. Of course, though, in trying to defend the indefensible, you will act as if these historical facts are just merely made up by those who want to lead others away from the Truth. Is that what you think of the Bible, too?

Oh, I wasn’t saying that you believed the Mason infiltration conspiracy. Just a good guess. I won’t get into that here, as it’s too far off topic.

 

[Stylite]

I do believe in the Scriptures.

Poor good thief didn’t receive water baptism and now is in Hell, I guess. Sorry, I think we (me) are getting a bit testy here, so I’ll bow out.

God bless,
I will pray for you, please pray for me.
-Stylite

 

[Ham1]

EENS:

If you know any history, you know who ran the committee to “reform” the Liturgy (Bugnini). If you know a little more history you know that he was found out to be a freemason. Of course, though, in trying to defend the indefensible, you will act as if these historical facts are just merely made up by those who want to lead others away from the Truth. Is that what you think of the Bible, too?

God bless.

Whoa…freemasons…here we go…

 

[Maggie]

Somebody want to clue me into what we are actually arguing about here? I feel like I’ve heard of Feeney but what exactly is the debate here about? That you can’t be saved unless you are Catholic? That seems to me not to be what the Church teaches, whether it did so in the past or not or whether it has since clarified that teaching seems to be a moot point. Currently it teaches the invincible ignorance part and we as Catholics must accept that. Otherwise you aren’t Catholic. You can call yourself anything you like, but you’ll have to start some new Protestant religion and then you won’t be Catholic and by your own standards you’ll not be saved either, so why exactly are we having this argument? Where exactly do Catholics who adhere to old teaching think that they get special dispensation to disagree with the Church? You’re still interpreting stuff for yourself. I guess I’m being either dense or uncharitable but I really don’t get it. I mean, I haven’t been in the Church for very long, so maybe that’s why, but I really don’t understand. I thought we had to accept the Church’s teaching period.

 

[EENS]

Stylite:

I do believe in the Scriptures.

Poor good thief didn’t receive water baptism and now is in Hell, I guess. Sorry, I think we (me) are getting a bit testy here, so I’ll bow out.

God bless,
I will pray for you, please pray for me.
-Stylite

The necessity of water Baptism did not begin until after Pentecost, as the Church has always taught.

 

[Vincent]

Well then, I guess in the eyes of some people, Lateran IV and Florence weren’t enough for Pope Pius IX. Either he made a heretical statement, or he didn’t. Which is it?

 

[Ham1]

Vincent:

Well then, I guess in the eyes of some people, Lateran IV and Florence weren’t enough for Pope Pius IX. Either he made a heretical statement, or he didn’t. Which is it?

Please elaborate…

 

[EENS]

Ham1:

Whoa…freemasons…here we go…

To take something from my friend here, these new makings:

[sarcasm]You’re right, we all know the freemasons have been destroyed in recent years. [/sarcasm]

A note: the society of freemasons, in the beginning of the 20th century stated that all its members, in order to destroy the belief in the Ressurection of the Body had to profess and teach a belief in cremation… guess what is now “accepted” as a new discipline in the Church? You got it…

God bless.

 

[Stylite]

Yes.
We must as Catholics believe the statement “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, though there are those outside of what we would call “formal membership” who are actually members of Christ’s church and can be saved. EENS disagrees with this view. Read Catholic Answers tract on it for a brief overview: catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

 

[EENS]

Vincent:

Well then, I guess in the eyes of some people, Lateran IV and Florence weren’t enough for Pope Pius IX. Either he made a heretical statement, or he didn’t. Which is it?

Like I said, I am not going to call a Pope a heretic; however, take this example:

Pope John XXII (yes, the 22, not the 23), around the 12th century was preaching toward the end of his life his private theological views on the judgment of the soul. He stated that there was no particular judgment (the judgment all receive immediately once the soul leaves the body). Rather, we only under went the General Judgment (when all souls are judged at the end of the earth). In any event, that belief was condemned throughout the Church, yet he still preached it from the pulpit as a Pope. We know, though, that he is not ALWAYS speaking ex Cathedra; therefore, he is not always infallible. In that event, he recanted his private theology before his death. God bless.

 

[Ham1]

EENS:

To take something from my friend here, these new makings:

[sarcasm]You’re right, we all know the freemasons have been destroyed in recent years. [/sarcasm]

A note: the society of freemasons, in the beginning of the 20th century stated that all its members, in order to destroy the belief in the Ressurection of the Body had to profess and teach a belief in cremation… guess what is now “accepted” as a new discipline in the Church? You got it…

God bless.

That’s nice. Thanks for the info. Do you have a point?

 

[montanaman]

Wow, EENS. I thoughtI was hardcore. Just a bit of warning–that high-octane triumphalism will eat you up one day. I know.

 

[EENS]

Maggie:

Somebody want to clue me into what we are actually arguing about here? I feel like I’ve heard of Feeney but what exactly is the debate here about? That you can’t be saved unless you are Catholic? That seems to me not to be what the Church teaches, whether it did so in the past or not or whether it has since clarified that teaching seems to be a moot point. Currently it teaches the invincible ignorance part and we as Catholics must accept that. Otherwise you aren’t Catholic. You can call yourself anything you like, but you’ll have to start some new Protestant religion and then you won’t be Catholic and by your own standards you’ll not be saved either, so why exactly are we having this argument? Where exactly do Catholics who adhere to old teaching think that they get special dispensation to disagree with the Church? You’re still interpreting stuff for yourself. I guess I’m being either dense or uncharitable but I really don’t get it. I mean, I haven’t been in the Church for very long, so maybe that’s why, but I really don’t understand. I thought we had to accept the Church’s teaching period.

Maggie,

We do have to accept ALL the Church’s defined dogmas to be saved, period. However, these dogmas only consist in what is defined in FAITH and MORALS and in an INFALLIBLE manner. The Pope is only infallible when he is teaching the whole Church, teaching either on faith and morals, speaking ex Cathedra, etc., etc. There are many stipulations. These are defined in Vatican I. Vatican I stated that all Ecumenical Councils are infallible, meaning Vatican I itself and all others before it. Nevertheless, when Vatican II was convened John XXIII stated that it was formulating NO new doctrine and was merely pastoral and NOT infallible. Paul VI, who became Pope during the council, reaffirmed both during and after the council this same statement. However, the point is that the Church has defined infallibly (in councils) that we absolutely must be Catholic to be saved, no exceptions. Other private ideas of certain theologians and Popes have come up in contrast with this Article of Faith. As you can see in my example from before, John XXII preached what had been condemned from the pulpit, yet he was not speaking inflalibly; therefore, we follow what is infallible not what is fallible. These new “interpretations” are not infallible, but the Church has defined infallibly that there are no exceptions: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. If you want to know more, go to catholicism.org/pages/fatdog.htm
and catholicism.org/pages/popes.htm. God bless.

 

[Stylite]

EENS:

The necessity of water Baptism did not begin until after Pentecost, as the Church has always taught.

Correct. Sorry for my error. However, The Good Thief has always been an interesting case showing that God could save one by desire if He so wished. The martyred infants are also an interesting case for baptism by blood. Not proofs, but something to think about.

 

[EENS]

montanaman:

Wow, EENS. I thoughtI was hardcore. Just a bit of warning–that high-octane triumphalism will eat you up one day. I know.

Anyone who defends Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is automatically labeled “proud.” Yes I AM proud–proud to be Catholic. God bless.

 

[Stylite]

Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council.

John XXIII stated:
“Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has
finally dawned when – under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast – the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter’s tomb…
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven…
That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council…
Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council…”

 

[montanaman]

Anyone who defends Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is automatically labeled “proud.” Yes I AM proud–proud to be Catholic. God bless.

Lol. Yes, that’s true. And I too am proud to be Catholic–I once went around to all the area Protestant churches and tacked up ten reasons why they should accept Mary as their “personal mother.” The local priest wasn’t happy…

But I don’t think you’re proud because you defend this doctrine so rigorously. I think you’re proud because of your unflinchingly narrow view of it. Nobody is saying there’s a loophole for people who reject the Church. What they ARE saying, or implying, is that the South Sea islander who’s never heard of the Church has as much right to God’s mercy as the rest of us. And in some way even the best psychologists will never be able to define, American Protestants may actually be ignorant, and therefore eligible, for Heaven. It’s not up to us to make that ultimate judgement.

 

[EENS]

Stylite:

Correct. Sorry for my error. However, The Good Thief has always been an interesting case showing that God could save one by desire if He so wished. The martyred infants are also an interesting case for baptism by blood. Not proofs, but something to think about.

The Good Theif was no different than any person in that time. One had only, under the Jewish law, to believe in the coming of a Saviour (which he obviously did). The other obligations were not necessary for salvation, meaning one did not absolutely have to do something in order to be saved (in a circumstance as his). Of course, they had to obey the Ten Commandments, keep holy the Sabbath; hwoever, they had no Sacraments that they had to receive, as we do today. For example, if one were going to die but had all the faith required before Christ, he would need no more; whereas, the Church requires that if one is in danger of death he MUST be Baptised, and anyone can do so and MUST do so, even one who is not Baptised. That is the difference: he was not a case according to the Old Law that would be outside the normative spectrum of those who went to the Limbo of the Fathers.

Also, to which martyred infants are you referring? If you are speaking of the Holy Innocents, they were all killed also before the necessity of Baptism. As I said, the Jews did not have any required law, practice, or Sacrament that was necessary for Salvation, as Baptism is now.

God bless.

 

[Stylite]

Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council pt. II

Paul VI, who inherited the Council stated the following:
“The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.”

Please note that both Popes state this council is Ecumenical.