Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians  (Read 15231 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Praeter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +122/-77
  • Gender: Male
Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Reply #210 on: February 10, 2020, 10:15:50 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obviously you are not understanding what you read is all, because all I did was copy and paste a direct quote from the Council of Trent in answer to your question, so what you are actually saying is that Trent contradicts itself. Let that sink in.

    And as expected, you still have not answered my question - which is a bit sad, but no surprise I guess.
    In case you haven't figure it out, I don't have a problem with interpreting something in light of what the Council teaches elsewhere concerning the same topic.  What I am pointing out is that you are contradicting your own method.  If you interpret what the Council says about Baptism using the same method you do when interpreting what it says about confession, your interpretation will be in agreement with that of the Church herself.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #211 on: February 10, 2020, 10:27:34 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Definition of interpret
    transitive verb1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

    So I think what Stubborn means is that the literal meaning of a dogma is not to be counted as an interpretation because it is already clearly stated and doesn't need any further interpretation.  For example, EENS is very clear.  Everyone understands the meaning of it.  So that's why defenders of EENS get upset when they hear people say that you have to interpret it according to how the Church understands it.  As if the Church's magisterium could teach a dogma that wasn't clear in its literal meaning (defeating the purpose of defining dogmas in the first place).


    Offline Praeter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +122/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #212 on: February 10, 2020, 10:35:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Definition of interpret
    transitive verb1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

    So I think what Stubborn means is that the literal meaning of a dogma is not to be counted as an interpretation because it is already clearly stated and doesn't need any further interpretation.  For example, EENS is very clear.  Everyone understands the meaning of it.  So that's why defenders of EENS get upset when they hear people say that you have to interpret it according to how the Church understands it.  As if the Church's magisterium could teach a dogma that wasn't clear in its literal meaning (defeating the purpose of defining dogmas in the first place).

    Everyone understands the meaning of EENS except the Feeneyite heretics.  Here's part of what the Holy Office wrote against the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, who, like his predecessor in heresy, relied on his private judgment to determine what he will and will not believe:

    1949 Holy Office Letter against the Errors of Fr. Feeney:  “Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

    “Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

    "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

    “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

    “However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

    “These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

    "Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

    "Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).”

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14718
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #213 on: February 10, 2020, 10:37:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • In case you haven't figure it out, I don't have a problem with interpreting something in light of what the Council teaches elsewhere concerning the same topic.  What I am pointing out is that you are contradicting your own method.  If you interpret what the Council says about Baptism using the same method you do when interpreting what it says about confession, your interpretation will be in agreement with that of the Church herself.
    You are the one interpreting Trent, not I. If you have the faith, then you understand that the sacrament of penance is necessary for all who have sinned after baptism because that is the way the Church has always understood it. If you are part of the Church, then you understand it too - no interpretation is necessary.

    You asked:
    1) Do you agree that sacrament of confession is necessary to salvation, as the infallible decree teaches?  If not, you are anathema. I answered that I agree.

    2) Do you believe a person can be saved without sacramental confession (e.g., The Blessed Mother, baptized children who died before reaching the age of reason, etc.)?  Here is where you need to understand it as the Church has always understood it. Our Blessed Mother never sinned = no need for confession. Before the age of reason = no need for confession. This is how the Church understands it,

    3) If you answered yes to number two, I want to know "if you can see the contradiction that it is to the dogma as decreed at Trent"? There is no contradiction, you only think so because you are not understanding what Trent teaches and decrees as necessary for the different sacraments.

    It is altogether futile to attempt to equate the teachings and the sacrament of penance with the sacrament of baptism.

    Just remember that If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; let him be anathema. Perhaps repeat it over and over to yourself until you finally believe it.

     
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #214 on: February 10, 2020, 10:40:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Everyone understands the meaning of EENS except the Feeneyite heretics.  

    That is the biggest load of bovine excrement I have ever read on this forum.  Who is "everyone"?  You should be embarrassed by posting this.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14718
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #215 on: February 10, 2020, 10:40:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Definition of interpret
    transitive verb1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

    So I think what Stubborn means is that the literal meaning of a dogma is not to be counted as an interpretation because it is already clearly stated and doesn't need any further interpretation.  For example, EENS is very clear.  Everyone understands the meaning of it.  So that's why defenders of EENS get upset when they hear people say that you have to interpret it according to how the Church understands it.  As if the Church's magisterium could teach a dogma that wasn't clear in its literal meaning (defeating the purpose of defining dogmas in the first place).
    Thank you, this is the best description yet.

    Note that whenever dogma is interpreted, it's meaning as declared is abandoned.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14718
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #216 on: February 10, 2020, 10:45:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Everyone understands the meaning of EENS except the Feeneyite heretics.  Here's part of what the Holy Office wrote against the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, who, like his predecessor in heresy, relied on his private judgment to determine what he will and will not believe:

    1949 Holy Office Letter against the Errors of Fr. Feeney:  “Now, among [...] “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
    Isn't that something? Certainly Fr. Feeney was "united to her by longing and desire", so all is good! After all, it says there is hope for salvation outside of her since she is only "the general help to salvation".  :facepalm:

    Have you ever actually read the letter?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #217 on: February 10, 2020, 10:51:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The other interesting characteristic of the EENS dogma is that it could only have 2 possible meanings (binary).  Either it is literally true and there is no salvation outside the Church or its interpretation must prove that in fact there is salvation outside the Church and the literal meaning is false.  But the literal meaning of a dogma can never be false.  This is why defenders of the rewarder God theory must prove that non-Catholics are inside the Church before death.  But then they run into the problem that anonymous-Christian theology is condemned by the pope.


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #218 on: February 10, 2020, 10:56:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • And then there is the fact that the 1949 Holy Office letter is the only known condemnation of the strict (literal meaning) interpretation of EENS.  But the literal meaning of EENS has never been condemned before that.  It would be weird for the Church to condemn the literal meaning of Her own dogmas.

    Offline Praeter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +122/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #219 on: February 10, 2020, 11:01:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is the biggest load of bovine excrement I have ever read on this forum.  Who is "everyone"?  You should be embarrassed by posting this.

    Just to confirm, is this the same Ladislaus who thinks the Earth is flat?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14718
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #220 on: February 10, 2020, 11:02:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • And then there is the fact that the 1949 Holy Office letter is the only known condemnation of the strict (literal meaning) interpretation of EENS.  But the literal meaning of EENS has never been condemned before that.  It would be weird for the Church to condemn the literal meaning of Her own dogmas.
    Very true, particularly when doing so would blatantly contradict The First Vatican Council's decree:

    "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".

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 Praeter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +122/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #221 on: February 10, 2020, 11:03:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • And then there is the fact that the 1949 Holy Office letter is the only known condemnation of the strict (literal meaning) interpretation of EENS.  But the literal meaning of EENS has never been condemned before that.  It would be weird for the Church to condemn the literal meaning of Her own dogmas.
    That's because what you call the "strict (literal meaning)" if EENS, is neither.  It is a false understanding of EENS that no one believed before the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, invented it.  And as soon as he did, the Church reacted by condemning it.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #222 on: February 10, 2020, 11:04:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just to confirm, is this the same Ladislaus who thinks the Earth is flat?

    Nice attempt at deflection by ad hominem.

    By "everyone", do you include the Francis Bergoglio and St. John Paul II?

    Offline Praeter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +122/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #223 on: February 10, 2020, 11:06:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Very true, particularly when doing so would blatantly contradict The First Vatican Council's decree:

    "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".
    Indeed, that's why the Church reacted at once when the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, came out with his novel and false understanding of the dogma.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #224 on: February 10, 2020, 11:08:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • That's because what you call the "strict (literal meaning)" if EENS, is neither.  It is a false understanding of EENS that no one believed before the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, invented it.  And as soon as he did, the Church reacted by condemning it.

    Garbage. Church Fathers all had a "strict" interpretation of EENS.  So strict, that about a half dozen of them explicitly REJECTED Baptism of Desire.

    Before we proceed any further, can people be saved without explicit knowledge of and belief in the Holy Trinity and incarnation?

    To say YES would be the "strict" definition of EENS (as shared by all the Church Fathers, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, etc.)

    To say NO would be allowing infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to be saved.

    Most of you EENS laxists deliberately conflate the issue of Baptism of Desire with EENS as a smokescreen.

    So, before we go any further, you need to define where you stand.

    Do you believe that infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved?