Howdy brothers and sisters. So having been taught that having invincible ignorance would mean someone is judged according to natural law and would allow the possibility of salvation has left me confused as a growing trad now that I’m learning about Church teaching. I’ve heard that if someone lived and died and never were made known of Christ or sent a priest it was because they would never have accepted Him. So what is true? Can anyone be saved having never heard of Christ? What is required of us to believe? Is there more nuance? And how can such a seemingly outright contradiction exist? Thanks!
This may be a bit long. I am having trouble with reconciling my understanding of this dogma with modern church teaching. I understand this to mean there is no salvation outside the Catholic church full stop. You must be a visible member of the church before you die in order to achieve salvation. I accept the understanding that there may be baptism of desire as taught by the council of Trent, meaning those who desire explicitly to belong to the church but are not formally baptized, receive the grace of baptism if they die without being formally baptized, but I see no authoritative evidence for, nor believe in, the implicit version of this (if there is evidence of this please send it). I also understand that an act of perfect contrition, as taught by the council of Trent, forgives one of all mortal sin before confession but also it requires a firm resolve to go to confession afterwards for the contrition to be perfect. So between those two it would seem that a protestant nor a non-believer could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven as they cannot perform an act of perfect contrition without confession nor obtain baptism of desire without wanting to enter into the church. In addition it seems that most of the church's teachings until about 170 years ago were strictly you must be visibly catholic to be saved (eg. Athanasian creed, council of Florence, ect.) So please help me, am I being heretical by propagating this understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Please show me authoritative proof with your reasoning. Also if its Vatican II/catechism, please show other supporting documents, ect. because I am very distrustful of these modern sources alone. It should be backed up by tradition anyway right?
Many of my friends and family members say that I need to be more “open” towards non-catholics, when I talk about this as-far-as-I-know dogma. Many of them say that it can’t be a real thing, and that I’m reading fake stuff. So, was it changed? Or erased? Or does it still hold the same meaning?
Hello, there!
I have seen in many traditionalist groups an interpretation of this axiom in a manner similar or even equan to that of Father Leonard Feeney. Knowing that Feeneyism was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, Reigning Venerable Pope Pius XII, the Angelic Pastor, I would like to know what are your takes on that: why do some traditionalist deny baptism by disere, and do they know this context I showed?
PS: I am myself a traditional catholic (I don't like the term "traditionalist" since it implies that one can be catholic without being traditional) and I condem modernism and all its implications, so no ad hominem can be used here (nor in any other case, actually).
May God bless you all!
Hello Dear Users,
The velvet brigade once again appears to darken our shores with circular arguments and thunderous condescension. Feel free to report them with gusto, this is not a debate forum AND I get a bit of a rush from deleting their really long posts.
-Torin
Greetings, everyone!
I'm not a Catholic, but I wish to become one soon. I have read a fair share into Sedevacantism and agree on the great vast majority of options. However, wouldn't it make more sense to fight these issues within the Church rather than outside? For example, in the hypothetical situation in which the pope (or anti-pope) would come and say: "Hey, we failed you, goodbye Vatican II, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyism and tradition's the way to go..."
No offence... Just curious...
Edit: I'm aware that not all Sedevacantists believe in Feeneyism and that content related to the topic will be removed But, I'm just curious.
John Knox's statement, "resisting tyranny is obedience to God", is grounded in two simple theological points: we are subject to authority and all authorities are subject to God. Tyranny is defined in a Christian sense when someone rebels against the supreme authority. The tyrant is an earthly authority rebelling against a heavenly authority, demanding his subjects join him in that rebellion.
Dealing with resistance to tyranny is a more difficult subject in our present context and I'll focus primarily on ecclesiastical rather than civil resistance to tyranny. One of the key issues is the source of tyranny—in many ways the ideology of (post)modern Christianity itself. Perhaps the primary exhibit of this problem is the Director General himself. Ashley Bloomfield is the perfect post-Christian. Self-described "man of faith" who doesn't go to church, has undefined "Christian values", and presides over a technocratic machine with nigh unlimited power, which he wields directly against the Church. He is joined by PM Jacinda Ardren with her cruel approach to "kindness" that Solomon warns about in Proverbs—"the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."
Their inner circles are filled with "experts" who I previously described as the new priest class, and it is their computer models and propaganda that drive the formation of a tyrannical system. This class includes people with openly nefarious anti-Christian agendas. E.g. Shawn Hendy and Susan Wiles are both involved in overt anti-Christian activism through deconstructing God's creation of sexual dimorphism and support the demonic system known as "transgenderism."
I'm not here to focus on the new priest class though, but rather the old. The propaganda system promotes the new priests in the secular realm, but you would expect that in the religious sphere there is some serious opposition to the current state of affairs. Yet there is virtual silence. The second arm of this tyranny is filled with many officers of the visible Church, collectively complicit—although there are always a few notable individual exceptions.
We can see what happens to a technocratic society or technocratic governance by looking around us—people's consciences are forcefully violated, livelihoods are threatened and destroyed, and families are turned against one another. But what happens to a technocratic church? It would go without saying that the oppression of the Church would have been resisted in times past, but not in our day. Yes, there were
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Letters Vol. I
To A. Zarine
Dear M. Zarine, 3 May 1939
Excuse the long delay in my response; I do not always have time to answer long letters such as yours.
And your questions are rather complicated.
In reading your letter I did not get the impression at all that your reasoning was morbid or unsound.
The reasoning itself seems to me normal, but the way that you apply it is not very fortunate, since I question whether you have fully understood what the “transcendent function” means.
In the normal man the transcendent function operates entirely in the unconscious, which tends to continually reestablish the equilibrium.
The arguments that you bring up in your letter concern the transcendent function, to be sure, but I do not think you have grasped the true nature of the process.
Of course, that is quite natural, since you cannot have had the experience of a psychologist and Consequently cannot picture how these things really are.
Yet I do not even need to take an abnormal case for an example.
There are many normal cases in which, under certain circumstances, a character opposed to the conscious personality suddenly manifests itself, causing a conflict between the two personalities.
Take the classic case of the temptation of Christ, for example.
We say that the devil tempted him, but we could just as well say that an unconscious desire for power confronted him in the form of the devil
Both sides appear here: the light side and the dark.
The devil wants to tempt Jesus to proclaim himself master of the world.
Jesus wants not to succumb to the temptation; then, thanks to the function that results from every conflict, a symbol appears: it is the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven, a spiritual kingdom rather than a material one.
Two things are united in this symbol, the spiritual attitude of Christ and the devilish desire for power.
Thus the encounter of Christ with the devil is a classic example of the transcendent function.
It appears here in the form of an involuntary personal experience.
But it can be used as a method too; that is, when the contrary will of the unconscious is sought for and recognized in dreams and other unconscious products.
In this way the conscious personality is brought face to face with the counter-position of the unconscious.
The resulting conflict-thanks precisely to the transcendent function-leads to a symbol uniting the opposed positions.
The symbol cannot be consciously chosen or constructed; it is a sort of intuitio
... keep reading on reddit ➡For those that have converted from the Novus Ordo religion, what is the worst experience you had or heresy you heard? I do not even know where to begin with my experiences...
- Priest claiming that Mohommadans and Catholics believe in the same God, then inviting a Mohommadan cleric into the church to discuss religious matters (I did not attend).
- Priest repetedly denying the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
- Priest telling sacreligious joke regarding extra ecclesium nulla salus
- Priest giving sermon on how "great" John XXIII was -Priest comparing the Inquisition to Mohammadan terrorist groups -Priest swearing during sermons -Priest saying he would like to throw the Baltimore Catechism in the trash because it "doesn't talk about God's love" -Priest falsely saying that "nobody understood what was going on" in the Tridentine Mass -Priest repeatedly playing protestant hymns and secular music in church And many other things. What do you remember?
I am greatly confused by Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Session 11 of Florence states: "It [The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church." Florence session 11.
But Lumen Gentium in V2 explicitly states non Catholics can be saved if they persist in good conscious. How can Catholicism contradict itself? I've been trying to find out how Lumen Gentium isnt Dogmatic but all evidence points to it being dogmatic. Please help!
