Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Hermes on August 01, 2021, 04:23:59 PM

Title: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Hermes on August 01, 2021, 04:23:59 PM
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/417d+VrkmlL.jpg)




In his book, Fr. Sullivan, while a modernist, does a great job from a historical perspective in tracing the history of the dogma of EENS from its apostolic origins with the very earliest Church Fathers all the way to the modern era. He ruefully accedes to the fact that EENS was understood literally and with little discrepancy (Baptism of Blood) for over a millennia. It was when the “new world” was discovered that Baptism of Desire, which was previously a speculation on catechumens who died before Baptism, became a full blown extension to all who had died without evangelization (implicit BOD). This change in understanding brought BOD to its most logical conclusions with Karl Rahner’s αnσnymσus Christian and to the most radical universalism of Fr. Hans Balthazar who, like Origen, believed in the possibility of universal salvation.

A very good read for those interested.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2021, 05:08:49 PM
Yes, he gets the history correct, as did Karl Rahner.  But, as Modernists, for them it's OK for dogma to change and evolve.

"Rewarder God" theory was invented shortly after the discovery of the New World.

From there, all hell broke lose on Catholic soteriology and ecclesiology.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2021, 05:12:00 PM
Is there a copy available online?  I'd rather not pay $27 for this on Amazon.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Hermes on August 01, 2021, 05:52:00 PM
Is there a copy available online?  I'd rather not pay $27 for this on Amazon.
Not that I have seen. It’s available on Perlego if you have a subscription or if you get a free trial.


https://www.perlego.com/book/1722868/salvation-outside-the-church-tracing-the-history-of-the-catholic-response-pdf (https://www.perlego.com/book/1722868/salvation-outside-the-church-tracing-the-history-of-the-catholic-response-pdf)
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: trad123 on August 01, 2021, 06:40:50 PM
See attached.

Part of chapter 5.

Entirety of chapter 6, 7, and 8.


Edit: Ran PDF through OCR, reattached file.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: bodeens on November 03, 2021, 06:36:43 PM
Between this and the Dimond's book you have everything covered. It's interesting though: Page 140 and on it EXPLICITLY says multiple times that the understanding of the dogma changed with VII. This book also, interestingly, makes the explicit distinction that many present at V1 at made the same distinctions about the "voto" text in Trent that EENSers on this forum are making. I'm straight going to reference this book a lot when arguing EENS on this forum as even the modernists admit our understanding is correct. Anyone on the fence about not buying this book should just buy, great reference. Worth noting the money isn't going to the Conciliar Hierarchy, the publisher is Wipf and Stock instead, which prints rare and out of print books. This book is written by a complete modernist but it's actually fantastic.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 03, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
OK, I've gone ahead and bought this book.  I imagine it will be a good read.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 03, 2021, 08:57:59 PM
Please do a book review, when you have time.  Would like to hear the high points. 
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: DecemRationis on November 04, 2021, 06:46:49 AM
Father Hαɾɾιson did a talk at an SBC conference addressing this book by Fr. Sullivan. The text (pdf) of the talk was taken down at Father Hαɾɾιson's request; a shame. I have the pdf and might post it - not sure if that would be appropriate though. I believe one can still get the video/mp3 of the talk for maybe $5 or $10.

I haven't read the article in some time but Father Hαɾɾιson gave a good summary of the "development" (false) of EENS (tracking Sullivan's discussion) and gave a strong defense for the traditional view - according with Cantate Domino.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: bodeens on November 04, 2021, 08:42:49 AM
Father Hαɾɾιson did a talk at an SBC conference addressing this book by Fr. Sullivan. The text (pdf) of the talk was taken down at Father Hαɾɾιson's request; a shame. I have the pdf and might post it - not sure if that would be appropriate though. I believe one can still get the video/mp3 of the talk for maybe $5 or $10.

I haven't read the article in some time but Father Hαɾɾιson gave a good summary of the "development" (false) of EENS (tracking Sullivan's discussion) and gave a strong defense for the traditional view - according with Cantate Domino.
Sounds like a good supplement, have a link where I could buy it? In terms of the VII sect I think the honesty of this book is helpful, most Modernists are not honest about their agenda like this. LoT and most sedes (some are fully redpilled but many have explicitly VII ecclesiological views) on this forum would benefit most from this book in my opinion. They are 100% onboard with all of clear steps of "development" in the dogma but are probably entirely ignorant that the EENS battle has been going on for 300+ years and how the discovery of the New World injected poison into theology.

This is one of those topics where the "ghetto" destroys the visibility of this issue and people who wouldn't normally be interested in EENS might be in this case due to who wrote it. It's painful because the evidence is out in the open. We're able to discuss and piece together minor truths of our reality (9/11, stolen elections, the Great Reset etc) but when all of the evidence is served on our platter about an essential article of Faith it has to be silenced in this subforum. I'd say outside of SBC types and EENSers on this forum most people don't even know this book exists.

Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 04, 2021, 08:54:52 AM
Between this and the Dimond's book you have everything covered. It's interesting though: Page 140 and on it EXPLICITLY says multiple times that the understanding of the dogma changed with VII. This book also, interestingly, makes the explicit distinction that many present at V1 at made the same distinctions about the "voto" text in Trent that EENSers on this forum are making. I'm straight going to reference this book a lot when arguing EENS on this forum as even the modernists admit our understanding is correct. Anyone on the fence about not buying this book should just buy, great reference. Worth noting the money isn't going to the Conciliar Hierarchy, the publisher is Wipf and Stock instead, which prints rare and out of print books. This book is written by a complete modernist but it's actually fantastic.
It is easy to defend the truth, there is total consistency. All variants of BOD require constant mental gymnastics, at every turn there is an inconstancy that must be dealt with, and at the nd they just end up believing "who knows who is saved".
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 04, 2021, 09:12:10 AM
It is easy to defend the truth, there is total consistency. All variants of BOD require constant mental gymnastics, at every turn there is an inconstancy that must be dealt with, and at the nd they just end up believing "who knows who is saved".

What's interesting is that the Modernists like Rahner and Sullivan admit the inconsistency but then chalk it up to doctrinal development (which in their view is tantamount to change).  See, they're OK with it.  Others who don't admit the principle of change attempt to apply a hermeneutic of continuity ... which indeed amounts to mental gymnastics with most attempts.  Archbishop Vigano finally snapped out of it and realized that applying the hermeneutic to V2 simply doesn't work.

Rahner, one of the main influencers at V2, admitted that the GREATEST development at V2, and it went unnoticed by the Traditionalists, was that of EENS dogma.  He's right on both counts, that it was the greatest shift (along with the resulting shift in ecclesiology) and that it went unnoticed.

And the reason it went unnoticed is that everyone had long been poisoned with the loose soteriology ... as we see even in Archbishop Lefebvre, who was one of the leaders of the conservative group at V2.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: DecemRationis on November 04, 2021, 12:05:33 PM

Sounds like a good supplement, have a link where I could buy it? In terms of the VII sect I think the honesty of this book is helpful, most Modernists are not honest about their agenda like this. LoT and most sedes (some are fully redpilled but many have explicitly VII ecclesiological views) on this forum would benefit most from this book in my opinion. They are 100% onboard with all of clear steps of "development" in the dogma but are probably entirely ignorant that the EENS battle has been going on for 300+ years and how the discovery of the New World injected poison into theology.

This is one of those topics where the "ghetto" destroys the visibility of this issue and people who wouldn't normally be interested in EENS might be in this case due to who wrote it. It's painful because the evidence is out in the open. We're able to discuss and piece together minor truths of our reality (9/11, stolen elections, the Great Reset etc) but when all of the evidence is served on our platter about an essential article of Faith it has to be silenced in this subforum. I'd say outside of SBC types and EENSers on this forum most people don't even know this book exists.
 
Let me clarify. Strictly speaking, Father hαɾɾιson took issue with implicit faith, calling it "false, and even proximate to heresy." That's pretty direct and straightforward, and probably why, as a member in good standing of the "Conciliar Church," on second thought he asked for it to be taken down. 

The necessity of the Church for salvation, strictly speaking, was not the issue he addressed. 

Here's an excerpt:


Quote
In the light of the very strong biblical witness we have surveyed very briefly above, it is not at all surprising that for no less than one and a half millennia after Christ, no Catholic theologian ever suggested that anyone in New Testament times, anywhere on earth, could still receive justification and sanctifying grace in this life, much less attain eternal salvation in the next life, by means of a merely ‘implicit faith’ in Christ. Fr. Sullivan, who is anxious to demonstrate the continuing, perennial reality and salvific value of such a ‘faith’, has combed the writings of the early Fathers, but draws a complete blank in this respect.


The video/mp3 is available here:


https://store.catholicism.org/can-an-implicit-faith-in-christ-be-sufficient-for-salvation-mp3.html


https://store.catholicism.org/can-an-implicit-faith-in-christ-be-sufficient-for-salvation.html

I haven't heard the lecture so I'm not sure how it differs from the paper. 


Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: bodeens on November 18, 2021, 11:08:37 PM
Just paging through the book and the honesty is incredible. Every time I pick up this book it's flooring how it makes you feel like no one is being entirely honest on this subject, especially online.

Most traditional clergy won't attribute Augustine as incredibly strict on EENS but this book is probably one of the only sources to correctly identify that Augustine's shift towards staunch anti-Pelagianism influenced his thoughts on BoD and ecclesiology in general. This sits squarely with people like Hermes, Lad, LT and myself who identify 99% of BoD formulations as repackaged Pelagianism. Why does baptismofdesire.com quote Augustine as a pro-BoDer? Who is behind this site??? Even other modernists like the author of this book correctly identify Augustine as one of the most hardline on EENS.

Page 43 is great, actually one of the most supportive to Dimondite viewpoints, as it attributes the ex cathedra statement from the Council of Florence on EENS as a verbatim quote from Fulgentius of Ruspe, who had very strict (characteristic for the time) views on ecclesiology. Modernists and a lot of traditional clergy say this proclamation, as with Cantate Domino,  isn't "understood", but it came from one of the staunch anti-boders from the early Church. How am I "supposed to understand" EENS or BoD? Very telling.

Lad, have you gotten this book yet? Any modernists on this forum wanna chime in? I know LoT is lurking, he should honestly read this book because it is the most extreme refutations of baptismofdesire.com, and it comes from someone with 0 horse in the race. I wish more people would read this book, it's incredible.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: DecemRationis on November 19, 2021, 07:53:25 AM
I joined Perlego, as least for the trial membership, and I'm reading Fr. Sullivan's book. It does seem like an honest examination. For example, I'm in the first chapter, and he juxtaposes the older, infallible statements of EENS - you know, Cantate Domino, Unam Sanctam, etc. - against V2 statements and then the V1 statement about retaining the meaning of once declared dogma "without deviation from that meaning on the specious ground . . . of a more profound understanding."

I'll share thoughts as I'm able. 

 
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: bodeens on November 19, 2021, 08:12:12 AM
I joined Perlego, as least for the trial membership, and I'm reading Fr. Sullivan's book. It does seem like an honest examination. For example, I'm in the first chapter, and he juxtaposes the older, infallible statements of EENS - you know, Cantate Domino, Unam Sanctam, etc. - against V2 statements and then the V1 statement about retaining the meaning of once declared dogma "without deviation from that meaning on the specious ground . . . of a more profound understanding."

I'll share thoughts as I'm able.

 
A very interesting thing the book points out (softly) is that the only reason Augustine wrote anything pro-BoD was because of his thoughts on predestination. Obvious problems for some people who love to quote him here. I was just thinking about your other thread and figured you'd want to know but thankfully you are already reading the book :)
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: DecemRationis on November 19, 2021, 08:33:13 AM
A very interesting thing the book points out (softly) is that the only reason Augustine wrote anything pro-BoD was because of his thoughts on predestination. Obvious problems for some people who love to quote him here. I was just thinking about your other thread and figured you'd want to know but thankfully you are already reading the book :)

Bodeens,

Thanks. I look forward to reading his thoughts on Augustine in that regard.

As is clear in my other thread, I think the topic of predestination - and the general avoidance of the classical Catholic understanding - is underlying much of the problems that manifested themselves in the now reigning magisterium of the "Conciliar Church." Liberal thinking on BOD and EENS is a natural outgrowth of seeing man as the center of things, even the determiner of his salvation.

The classical, traditional and orthodox Thomistic understanding embraces human freedom as a secondary cause and harmonizes a true understanding of human "free will" with the divine will remaining as primary cause and the determiner of the good, eternal life (for each individual He saves), while permitting the bad, damnation, i.e. the torments of hell (for those who reject actual - not sanctifying - graces given to all who reach maturity).

If one understands salvation as a gratuitous gift granted and bestowed by God on whom He chooses, one can readily accept the logic that he would give and bestow it through a means or way He selects as well - through His Son, and a conscious embracing of His truth as revealed through His selected organ of communcation, the Catholic Church. 

DR
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: bodeens on November 19, 2021, 08:48:11 AM
Bodeens,

Thanks. I look forward to reading his thoughts on Augustine in that regard.

As is clear in my other thread, I think the topic of predestination - and the general avoidance of the classical Catholic understanding - is underlying much of the problems that manifested themselves in the now reigning magisterium of the "Conciliar Church." Liberal thinking on BOD and EENS is a natural outgrowth of seeing man as the center of things, even the determiner of his salvation.

The classical, traditional and orthodox Thomistic understanding embraces human freedom as a secondary cause and harmonizes a true understanding of human "free will" with the divine will remaining as primary cause and the determiner of the good, eternal life (for each individual He saves), while permitting the bad, damnation, i.e. the torments of hell (for those who reject actual - not sanctifying - graces given to all who reach maturity).

If one understands salvation as a gratuitous gift granted and bestowed by God on whom He chooses, one can readily accept the logic that he would give and bestow it through a means or way He selects as well - through His Son, and a conscious embracing of His truth as revealed through His selected organ of communcation, the Catholic Church. 

DR

To be honest I haven't grappled much with predestination so clearly this needs to be a focus in my studies of the future. This really is a whole side of the debate that I don't think gets much exposure, and as such I may have to revise what I think in the future, or at least be able to get deeper into some distinctions based on my understanding of predestination. 
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: DecemRationis on November 19, 2021, 09:09:15 AM

To be honest I haven't grappled much with predestination so clearly this needs to be a focus in my studies of the future. This really is a whole side of the debate that I don't think gets much exposure, and as such I may have to revise what I think in the future, or at least be able to get deeper into some distinctions based on my understanding of predestination.

Exactly. It's an ignored subject. I think Catholics run from it because of emphasis on it by Calvinists - maybe that's part of Satan's deception: put a stain on the subject for Catholics by having a heretical and schismatic sect make it a cause célèbre.

I won't derail this thread, but there's a good sermon by Bishop Sanborn on the subject - I'll post it in my other thread. I think the sermon is about 25 minutes, and gives a great overview.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Angelus on November 19, 2021, 11:09:30 AM
If anyone will just read the excerpted pages of Sullivan's book, provided by Tradman (above in this thread), you can see one thing very clearly: the precise formulation and understanding of the EENS dogma has been debated for many centuries by prominent Catholic theologians (many of whom were canonized saints). 

So the fact that canonized saints cannot agree on the precise formulation should give pause to people on this forum who think they CAN give a precise formulation and that anyone who doesn't agree with their formulation is a heretic. 

Please just accept that there is some element of mystery in the EENS dogma. That doesn't mean that the dogma is not valid or true. It simply means that our limited human minds cannot completely grasp the thought of God that the dogma attempts to express. Cut people some slack. 

Differences of opinion, within limits, should be acceptable, unless the stated opinion has been specifically anathematized. Formulations of BoD that are not heretical, then, would have to be stated to avoid anathemas. Any of those formulations, should be considered open for discussion/debate. Formulations of BoD that are truly "heretical" could be proved to be as heretical by showing contradiction of that exact formulation with some anathema. If you cannot prove it is heretical, stop claiming that it is.

Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: bodeens on November 19, 2021, 12:27:25 PM
If anyone will just read the excerpted pages of Sullivan's book, provided by Tradman (above in this thread), you can see one thing very clearly: the precise formulation and understanding of the EENS dogma has been debated for many centuries by prominent Catholic theologians (many of whom were canonized saints).

So the fact that canonized saints cannot agree on the precise formulation should give pause to people on this forum who think they CAN give a precise formulation and that anyone who doesn't agree with their formulation is a heretic.

Please just accept that there is some element of mystery in the EENS dogma. That doesn't mean that the dogma is not valid or true. It simply means that our limited human minds cannot completely grasp the thought of God that the dogma attempts to express. Cut people some slack.

Differences of opinion, within limits, should be acceptable, unless the stated opinion has been specifically anathematized. Formulations of BoD that are not heretical, then, would have to be stated to avoid anathemas. Any of those formulations, should be considered open for discussion/debate. Formulations of BoD that are truly "heretical" could be proved to be as heretical by showing contradiction of that exact formulation with some anathema. If you cannot prove it is heretical, stop claiming that it is.
The only people being called heretics or being warned there is heresy in their opinions on here are people who formulate BoD in a Pelagian manner. In my whole time here I have only seen potentially materially heretical formulations of BoD from people who probably don't obsesses over BoD/EENS a handful of times. I don't think anyone in this thread particularly has an axe to grind in this regard.
Title: Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 19, 2021, 02:39:56 PM
There's nothing unclear about the "formulation".