Author Topic: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?  (Read 2713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Reputation: +73/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2019, 04:33:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I may need to correct/retract this but off the top of my head I can't remember. Please give me some time to read it again.
    Thank you.
    Sure, Joe. Thanks for checking. 
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +73/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #31 on: March 15, 2019, 04:38:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wait.  Not so fast.

    St. Fulgentius

    Quote
    Quote
    But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.

    It's not unlikely that Trent had this teaching in mind with that Catechism passage.

    Except the Roman Catechism lacks the "since" and what follows.
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9710
    • Reputation: +3861/-890
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #32 on: March 15, 2019, 05:29:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn,

    Brother Andre Marie had an episode on BOD on his Reconquest Radio show, Episode 109. He cites several good articles in his discussion, including Raymond Karem's original Reply to a Liberal Part III, also posted on catholicisim.org - https://veritasradionetwork.com/reconquest-episode-109-catholic-considerations-on-baptism-of-desire/

    You know the history of this and the importance of Karam's article in From the Housetops. In the article Karam says this:

    Are you saying Brother Andre, or more broadly the SBC, disagrees with that?

    I say they do not : de jure it could [Karam, "can be sufficient"] SAVE, but de facto it doesn't happen.

    DR
    I wondered if the SBC, or one/some of their groups who went under conciliar church rule, were going to fold. Brother Andre and whoever is with him on this, is on their own. By that I mean they should disavow Fr. Feeney as their founder and go create their own community somewhere else and call it something else - iow, be outwardly, upfront honest.

    The most obvious of all possible points *against* using Trent's Catechism to prove Trent taught a BOD, is that it says "grace and righteousness", which can only apply to the living, whereas "salvation" can only apply to the dead, this should be obvious to all who read that passage honestly from the catechism.

    Obviously one can only attain salvation after death. Until death, i.e. whilst we live, we all strive to be in the state of grace and righteousness, which are attributes of the living, and also especially the dying, but definitely not the dead.

    Know what I mean?
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +73/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #33 on: March 15, 2019, 05:39:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wondered if the SBC, or one/some of their groups who went under conciliar church rule, were going to fold. Brother Andre and whoever is with him on this, is on their own. By that I mean they should disavow Fr. Feeney as their founder and go create their own community somewhere else and call it something else - iow, be outwardly, upfront honest.


    Stubborn,

    For agreeing with Karam? Fr. Feeney said he agreed with Karam.

    DR
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +73/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #34 on: March 15, 2019, 05:43:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The most obvious of all possible points *against* using Trent's Catechism to prove Trent taught a BOD, is that it says "grace and righteousness", which can only apply to the living, whereas "salvation" can only apply to the dead, this should be obvious to all who read that passage honestly from the catechism.

    Obviously one can only attain salvation after death. Until death, i.e. whilst we live, we all strive to be in the state of grace and righteousness, which are attributes of the living, and also especially the dying, but definitely not the dead.

    Know what I mean?

    What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive. 
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #35 on: March 15, 2019, 06:29:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.

    That biblical passage only shows that Justification is attributed not only to her Faith, but also to love or Charity (and Hope too!, even if it is not named here). Basically, it is referring to the three theological virtues in the perfect pattern of true penance, which do not exclude each other. That is all there is to it.

    There is no reason to suspect that the woman died without the water Baptism.   
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +73/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #36 on: March 15, 2019, 06:37:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • That biblical passage only shows that Justification is attributed not only to her Faith, but also to love or Charity (and Hope too!, even if it is not named here). Basically, it is referring to the three theological virtues in the perfect pattern of true penance, which do not exclude each other. That is all there is to it.

    There is no reason to suspect that the woman died without the water Baptism.  

    Hi. I'm not arguing that, and it was not the purpose for the quote.
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3182
    • Reputation: +1732/-984
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #37 on: March 15, 2019, 07:47:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Last Tradhican wrote -  " In 25 years of dealing with this subject of BOD, I have never once met a defender of BOD that did not stretch it to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church. It is called salvation by belief in a God that rewards, implicit faith for short. What is most surprising is that even the anti-Vatican II traditionalist priestly groups, both sedevacantes and SSPX, both teach their seminarians that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards (that is: people who do not want to be Catholic, don not want to be baptized, do not even believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, that those people can be saved), and yet they reject Vatican II when it teaches the same thing as clear as day."


    You mean "met" as in face to face or in person I presume. Because there are those around here who I'm sure you have encountered that recognize BOD without stretching it "to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church." I am one; off the top of my head, I believe Nishant would be one also. There are others.  

    I have never met a defender of BOD that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith, that is, salvation by belief in a god the rewards. People who restrict their belief in baptism of desire to a catechumen, do not go to forums to argue about it relentlessly, to defend their BOD. Nishant had to be pushed to get him to the position of "saying" that he restricts it, and I for you stated that I do not believe him. Anyone that really restricts BOD to the catechumen, would not be posting in favor of the BOD for fear of being associated with modernists who teach the false BOD.  I have never seen a person who says they restrict BOD to the catechumen, attack the real enemy, the 99% of BODers who stretch it to the max, salvation by belief in a god that rewards.

    No defender of EENS as it is written, ever cared one iota about the argument that a catechumen who gets killed on the way to be baptized, "may" be saved. That was never what all of these endless threads on CI were about.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 728
    • Reputation: +138/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #38 on: March 15, 2019, 08:07:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm too new (to the faith, not even just to the forum) to state any kind of strong opinion here, but I do have a question about what's being stated here.

    Did Archbishop Lefebvre, or do any conservative advocates of a BOD that applies to more than just catechumens, believe in salvation *by* faith in a God who rewards?  Or do they, rather, state that belief in a God that rewards is simply a minimum threshold below which nobody could ever be saved, under any circumstance?

    As I recall Lefebvre (right or wrong) said that if a non-Catholic was saved it would be despite their religion, not because of it.

    Though that whole portion of the exchange bothered me, one thing that *really* bothered me about Bishop Barron's whole answer to Shapiro being like "I'm a Jew, can I still go to heaven?" was that he claimed Vatican II says even an *atheist* of good will "can be" saved.  It especially bothered me for two reasons.  One of the reasons was that Vatican II simply doesn't say this.  It doesn't mention atheists at all.  But the other thing is that the idea that someone can be ignorant of God's eternal power and divine nature seems to straight up contradict Romans 1.  So like, even if you can debate when/if/how someone could be invincibly ignorant of Jesus Christ, or the Catholic Church specifically, it seems like according to sacred scripture it is *not possible* to be ignorant of God's eternal power or divine nature. 

    Would using that reasoning, and thus saying that its hypothetically possible for God (by his grace and despite, not because of their errors) to save someone who believes in a God who rewards and is perfectly contrite for any mortal sins, but that God would not save an atheist in any case because the atheist is AUTOMATICALLY in mortal sin for denying what he knows full well is true, be distinguishable from saying anyone is saved BECAUSE they believe in a God who rewards?

    Note that I'm posing a question here, not claiming that I have this right.  I'm also not arguing AGAINST the strict position here, just wondering if we can logically deliniate. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18847
    • Reputation: +10373/-4885
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #39 on: March 15, 2019, 09:01:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus, could you provide the Latin word that's used there?  That would be very useful in future discussions.

    Sorry.  I had a Latin copy at one point but can't find it anymore.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18847
    • Reputation: +10373/-4885
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #40 on: March 15, 2019, 09:03:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Except Trent doesn't have a "ne" or "neque" before "avail."

    No, but the sense is the equivalent.  Ne is not strictly required to have the same sense.  One clue would be whether the verb is in the subjunctive mood.  What's key is that St. Fulgentius uses the same concept (we'll have to see if it's the same Latin verb) without it necessary implying that it's sufficient in and of itself for salvation, rather sufficient for salvation in the sense of being sufficient to insure reception of the Sacrament.

    He said that confession "avails" for salvation.  Right?

    But HOW does it avail?  It avails by insuring reception of the Sacrament.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18847
    • Reputation: +10373/-4885
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #41 on: March 15, 2019, 09:09:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not unlikely that Trent had this teaching in mind with that Catechism passage.


    Except the Roman Catechism lacks the "since" and what follows.

    No, but the point is that avail to salvation does not necessarily mean that it's sufficient in se, but rather sufficient in the sense of insuring Baptism ... in the sense of "seek and you shall find".  St. Ambrose actually used the same line of thought in his oration about Valetinian.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18847
    • Reputation: +10373/-4885
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #42 on: March 15, 2019, 09:14:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.

    Not saved in the sense of final perseverance.  Whether or not you agree with Father Feeney's application, it's absolutely true that there cannot strictly be any salvation until one has died with the grace of final perseverance.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +73/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #43 on: March 15, 2019, 09:38:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have never met a defender of BOD that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith, that is, salvation by belief in a god the rewards.

    Well, behold and see:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'implicit-faith'-heretical/

    https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/heresy-(another-eens-thread)/msg128216/#msg128216

    But I don't know if I'd call myself a "defender" of BOD - I feel bound to accept it by virtue of Trent, the Council and the Catechism, limited to its terms. And then St. Thomas, etc. 

    It's an important issue because it's about truth, and how one handles certain facts and givens in argument. 

    People who restrict their belief in baptism of desire to a catechumen, do not go to forums to argue about it relentlessly, to defend their BOD. Nishant had to be pushed to get him to the position of "saying" that he restricts it, and I for you stated that I do not believe him. Anyone that really restricts BOD to the catechumen, would not be posting in favor of the BOD for fear of being associated with modernists who teach the false BOD.  

    I have no fear of standing up for the truth, particularly on a forum typing in a comfortable chair in exchanges with people I'll never meet - Posting. Knuckleheads will always make leaps of false association. I could care less. Fear?

    I have never seen a person who says they restrict BOD to the catechumen, attack the real enemy, the 99% of BODers who stretch it to the max, salvation by belief in a god that rewards.

    Well, I've been attacking implicit faith and a dilution of EENS for a couple of decades now. Am I a BODer?

    No defender of EENS as it is written, ever cared one iota about the argument that a catechumen who gets killed on the way to be baptized, "may" be saved. That was never what all of these endless threads on CI were about.

    Truth matters. If the Church teaches that desire could save, that a catechumen could be saved by faith, hope and charity without the receipt of the sacrament per Church teaching and that is denied, it matters. It matters when truth is denied, period. One should care about that; I care about that.  
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +73/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
    « Reply #44 on: March 15, 2019, 09:40:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, but the sense is the equivalent.  Ne is not strictly required to have the same sense.  One clue would be whether the verb is in the subjunctive mood.  What's key is that St. Fulgentius uses the same concept (we'll have to see if it's the same Latin verb) without it necessary implying that it's sufficient in and of itself for salvation, rather sufficient for salvation in the sense of being sufficient to insure reception of the Sacrament.

    He said that confession "avails" for salvation.  Right?

    But HOW does it avail?  It avails by insuring reception of the Sacrament.
    Lad,

    You often make interesting arguments with insight. I'll always give you that. 

    DR
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16