Outside the Church there is no salvation


The 'three-baptisms- BODers' are stuck with their liberal ideas as if these ideas were implanted in their brains, while basic, fundamental Catholic theology has been wiped away with an industrial strength repellent....similar to sedeism.

They would be advised to focus on the role of the Divine Providence in a Baptism of Desire - which BOD's only chance to accomplish heaven for the person, is when the Divine Providence is altogether excluded from the formula. BODers never even notice that there is no Divine Providence involved, either that or they have a rank misunderstanding of what the Divine Providence even is.

If they ever could get themselves to accept the simple truth that it is by the very same providence with which you were baptized that we are all baptized, they may figure it out. But trying to convince BODers of this simple truth is all but impossible.



Stand-alone pieces from other forums:

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est
Rome has spoken, the case is closed.


Regardless of what the great doctors and saints thought and taught - no matter that there were a million of them that all taught the same thing - one infallible declaration from one pope, will, can and has squashed them all.

The Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, does so for a specific purpose, namely to repeat what has already been infallibly declared, to settle the issue for all time and remove even the remotest possibility of ambiguity for all time, that is why it is called a *Defined* dogma. One might even call it a statement that is ipso facto explained clearly. It comes to us pre-interpreted so as to be sure there is no room for the Holy Ghost to mis-communicate to us.

God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Ex cathedra declarations mean that the Holy Ghost assures the faithful that He will not allow any shadow of error or otherwise ambiguous statement to escape the lips of the Pope.

Nor does the Pope need anyone's approval, his ex cathedra pronouncement is the final say regardless of what a council full of bishops and cardinals might say, regardless of what doctors of the Church or saints might have said or taught - His declaration (as long as it is ex cathedra) comes pre-defined so that *anyone* who attempts to re-interpret will only achieve reformulating the declaration into a meaningless formula like it is today. IOW, because ex cathedra pronouncements come from God the Holy Ghost (through the pope), they mean exactly what they say - forever.

Ex cathedra pronouncements are there to protect the faithful, not leave one wondering "what does *that* mean?"

OTOH, whoever believes the Holy Ghost would allow a Pope to declare an ex cathedra dogma that does not mean *exactly* what it says, is open to re-interpretation or is otherwise unclear and does not mean exactly what it says, then they must admit their own error and examine their own thinking because they are accusing God of universal and intentional deception - or they are accusing God of incompetence.

From the First Vatican Council:
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Does anyone suppose that were the Pope to once again infallibly define the sacred dogma that he could say anything different than that which has already been infallibly defined?