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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 33

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians  (Read 15228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46575
  • Reputation: +27431/-5069
  • Gender: Male
Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Reply #225 on: February 10, 2020, 11:19:32 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • If you're going to debate this issue, at least be honest and dispense with the nonsense.

    I ... and most Feeneyites ... don't care about Baptism of Desire per se.  EENS and Baptism of Desire are two separate issues.  It's only because some heretics use Baptism of Desire in such a way as to undermine EENS.  St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine did not do that.

    If I said to you, "I believe in Baptism of Desire, but it's only for catechumens." ... would you classify that as heresy?  Or is that an acceptable Catholic position?
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #226 on: February 10, 2020, 11:20:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • St Thomas Aquinas, St Alphonsus Liguori, Fr. Michael Mueller and Fr. Feeney all held to the strict interpretation of EENS and they all believed that BOD was a thing (granted Fr. Feeney's conception of BOD was different from St Thomas and St Alphonsus).  None of them were condemned except Fr. Feeney but even he was not excommunicated because of his teaching on EENS.  He wasn't even excommunicated for his teaching on BOD.  He was excommunicated because he didn't go to Rome when he was ordered to do so.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14718
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #227 on: February 10, 2020, 11:21:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Praeter on February 10, 2020, 11:06:09 AM
    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.
    Novel and false understanding by quoting it. Remember that.
    Logged
    "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 #228 on: February 10, 2020, 11:21:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 10, 2020, 11:20:07 AM
    St Thomas Aquinas, St Alphonsus Liguori, Fr. Michael Mueller and Fr. Feeney all held to the strict interpretation of EENS and they all believed that BOD was a thing (granted Fr. Feeney's conception of BOD was different from St Thomas and St Alphonsus).  None of them were condemned except Fr. Feeney but even he was not excommunicated because of his teaching on EENS.  He wasn't even excommunicated for his teaching on BOD.  He was excommunicated because he didn't go to Rome when he was ordered to do so.

    Exactly.  Before we get into ANY discussion of BoD, let's keep EENS completely separate.  It's usually the EENS-laxists who deliberately conflate Baptism of Desire with a loose/lax interpretation of EENS.  They do this so they can pretend that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al. endorse their lax ecclesiology which allows all manner of infidels to be saved.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14718
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #229 on: February 10, 2020, 11:25:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 10, 2020, 11:20:07 AM
    None of them were condemned except Fr. Feeney but even he was not excommunicated because of his teaching on EENS.  He wasn't even excommunicated for his teaching on BOD.  He was excommunicated because he didn't go to Rome when he was ordered to do so.
    But it turned out to be no big deal because it is certain that Fr. Feeney was still united to the Church by desire and longing.
    Logged
    "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 #230 on: February 10, 2020, 11:28:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became your Pope Benedict XVI, wrote an official letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF of your Church), which officially permitted the strict interpretation of EENS.  So does THAT make him a heretic?

    Your Conciliar hierarchy which you profess to "recognize" and presumably obey, officially received Fr. Feeney back into the Church.  If you don't accept that, who is being disobedient?  You or Fr. Feeney (who said he would accept the decision of the pope if he ever defined BOD as a dogma)?
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #231 on: February 10, 2020, 11:36:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • It's obvious that Ratzinger agreed with his mentor Karl Rahner (thanks for that amazing quote Ladislaus!) that the strict interpretation was the norm for the Church.  It was the new theology which had to reinterpret it.  Of course, I agree that the loose interpretation existed long before the new theology but it didn't gain much traction until the 20th century and the rise of the new theology.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #232 on: February 10, 2020, 11:36:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 10, 2020, 11:28:09 AM
    Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became your Pope Benedict XVI, wrote an official letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF of your Church), which officially permitted the strict interpretation of EENS.  So does THAT make him a heretic?

    Your Conciliar hierarchy which you profess to "recognize" and presumably obey, officially received Fr. Feeney back into the Church.  If you don't accept that, who is being disobedient?  You or Fr. Feeney (who said he would accept the decision of the pope if he ever defined BOD as a dogma)?

    Yes, ALL of the Church Fathers had a "strict" interpretation of EENS.

    Honestly, I have had half a mind to say that I accept BoD for catechumens just to flush out the dishonesty when it comes to conflating BoD and EENS.

    Vatican II errors are all 100% based on the "loose" interpretation of EENS.  If I believed the "loose" interpretation of EENS, I would immediately drop any objection to Vatican II.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #233 on: February 10, 2020, 11:39:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 10, 2020, 11:36:16 AM
    It's obvious that Ratzinger agreed with his mentor Karl Rahner (thanks for that amazing quote Ladislaus!) that the strict interpretation was the norm for the Church.  It was the new theology which had to reinterpret it.  Of course, I agree that the loose interpretation existed long before the new theology but it didn't gain much traction until the 20th century and the rise of the new theology.

    Yes, it's a little known fact that Karl Rahner was attacked by the more liberal heretics (Hans Kung in particular) for his "Anonymous Christianity," because Rahner somehow felt that Christ needed to be part of the equation for salvation.  Rahner held that Christ was still the instrumental cause of salvation, albeit operating secretly within each soul.  Archbishop Lefebvre's soteriology, where people are saved BY the Church, even unaware of it themselves, is identical with the soteriology of Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity".
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #234 on: February 10, 2020, 11:53:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The reason I do not equate Archbishop Lefebvre, Praetor and XavierSem with the modernists is that they are clearly trying to hold to what they think the Church teaches.  Whereas, the Ratzingers and Rahners are all very open about their resistance to what they know is the Church's traditional doctrine.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #235 on: February 10, 2020, 12:09:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2020, 11:39:17 AM
    Yes, it's a little known fact that Karl Rahner was attacked by the more liberal heretics (Hans Kung in particular) for his "Anonymous Christianity," because Rahner somehow felt that Christ needed to be part of the equation for salvation.  Rahner held that Christ was still the instrumental cause of salvation, albeit operating secretly within each soul.  Archbishop Lefebvre's soteriology, where people are saved BY the Church, even unaware of it themselves, is identical with the soteriology of Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity".
    Do you really put the Archbishop’s position in the same category as Rahner’s? 
    BTW: Lad, did you get my last message?
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #236 on: February 10, 2020, 12:44:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 10, 2020, 12:09:52 PM
    Do you really put the Archbishop’s position in the same category as Rahner’s?

    Yes, absolutely.  I think you have a kneejerk opposition to the statement just because of Rahner's reputatin.  But Rahner's key point that even if one isn't IN the Church or aware of being in the Church, he is still saved BY Jesus Christ.  He was actually criticized by Kung for saying that.  This "not in, but by" thinking is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre articulated.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #237 on: February 10, 2020, 12:45:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 10, 2020, 12:09:52 PM
    BTW: Lad, did you get my last message?

    Yes, just saw it. I'll respond shortly.  I had another message comes in, and the way the PM box looks I don't always notice what's new and what's older.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #238 on: February 10, 2020, 05:15:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2020, 12:44:39 PM
    Yes, absolutely.  I think you have a kneejerk opposition to the statement just because of Rahner's reputatin.  But Rahner's key point that even if one isn't IN the Church or aware of being in the Church, he is still saved BY Jesus Christ.  He was actually criticized by Kung for saying that.  This "not in, but by" thinking is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre articulated.
    Wow! That’s the first I’ve heard of that. It’s hard for me to believe that the dogma was stretched so much back then by those who were considered ultra conservatives. It does help explain however, how the “Feeneyite” “movement” devolved.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46575
    • Reputation: +27431/-5069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #239 on: February 10, 2020, 06:16:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 10, 2020, 05:15:14 PM
    Wow! That’s the first I’ve heard of that. It’s hard for me to believe that the dogma was stretched so much back then by those who were considered ultra conservatives. It does help explain however, how the “Feeneyite” “movement” devolved.

    If you look at the entire saga of Father Feeney vs. Cardinal Cushing, it's very interesting.  Cardinal Cushing was reported by his biographer (who thought highly of him) as having said:  "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense.  Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."  I guess that this "Nobody" would include the Church, which defined/declared the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church several times.  Father Feeney's initial crusade was just about EENS proper, and BoD only entered the conversation later.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 33
    « previous next »