Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians  (Read 5492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10146
  • Reputation: +3985/-958
  • Gender: Male
Re: EENS for baptized Christians
« Reply #285 on: February 13, 2020, 07:17:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's just based on bad will and wishful thinking on your part.  +Lefebvre felt that they were very possibly right, so I guess he doesn't fall into your group of "non-sede Catholics".
    Not so, I actually hope that at some point in time that they are proven right the only way possible - by a future pope declaring as much. But if they are wrong, then they will suffer the consequences of being wrong. For non-sedes, this is the risk we are not willing to take, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to ever even consider taking that risk. Do not mistake my lack of liberal thinking with bad will and wishful thinking.

    +ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition. He never thought it was a good idea or ever told anyone to become a sede, but he did expel sedes from his seminaries, who in turn went off and started their own sede groups.

    Still, best if sedes stick to referencing their own, like Ibranyi and Dimonds, Fr. Cekada and +Sanborn and +CMRI and etc,. After all, it only makes sense that non-sedes never reference sedes to support non-sedeism, just as it makes no sense whatsoever to reference +ABL to support sedeism as if he was a supporter of it.

     
    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 ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 388
    • Reputation: +50/-33
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #286 on: February 13, 2020, 07:31:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I’ll try to do some research.  I’m Ukrainian rite btw.
    I found these:



    ... and others but I am afraid to learn from adulterated content. After 40 years in V II I do not want to reiterate my error to take for granted what I am offered. Even (especiallly) when offered from official sources.

    Also, I apologies for my ignorance, but from these videos I would assume that you do recognize the authority of the Holy Father, not the Russian Patriarch... One video suggests that there is conflict over the Filioque dogma but the first I listed suggests that you share it.

    My wife's very good friend is Ukranian and Christian, but not Orthodox. I therefore assume she is of one of the 21 eastern rites. I am trying to understand what rite exactly her friend adheres to, but she only speaks Russian and I do not communicate directly with her. Anyway, from what I understand her friend believes the Filioque dogma and also recognizes the Holy Father (mind you, she's extremely critical of his opinions) and this, for me, is a ray of light since my wife is Orthodox, and I am hoping to learn that non Roman rites, as the Eastern rites, perhaps may be closer to the Orthodox religion, and make the transition easier.

    Do you celebrate Mass in English, Russian, Ukranian or Latin? Do you sign yourself starting from the left or the right? Do you use three joint fingers? Do you believe the transubstantiation (two videos suggest that, yes, you do)?

    But most importantly of all, does your rite (not you, personally) believe in strict EENS or lax EENS? I could not appreciate this from any of the videos (I googled Eastern rites EENS).

    Sorry for all these questions and thank you for your time in searching for correct videos.
    Tommaso
    + IHSV


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 615
    • Reputation: +169/-234
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #287 on: February 13, 2020, 08:54:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you celebrate Mass in English, Russian, Ukranian or Latin? Do you sign yourself starting from the left or the right? Do you use three joint fingers? Do you believe the transubstantiation (two videos suggest that, yes, you do)?

    But most importantly of all, does your rite (not you, personally) believe in strict EENS or lax EENS? I could not appreciate this from any of the videos (I googled Eastern rites EENS).
    The Eastern Catholic rites are Catholic and believe all the doctrines of the Catholic church. There may be some differences on undefined points, such as whether Our Lady died or not before the Assumption. Ukrainian-rite trained clergy tend to be conservative.
    The liturgy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church was traditionally in Old Slavonic, a language standardized and transcribed by Sts. Cyril and Methodius. But in my experience, in the West most liturgies today are celebrated in Ukrainian or English with some hymns in Slavonic. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20761
    • Reputation: +11445/-5598
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #288 on: February 13, 2020, 08:59:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • +ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition.

    OK, we all know this, man.  All we're saying is that unlike many of his followers, he was never dogmatic anti-sede.

    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 388
    • Reputation: +50/-33
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #289 on: February 13, 2020, 09:04:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • OK, we all know this, man.  All we're saying is that unlike many of his followers, he was never dogmatic anti-sede.
    OT: if one believes that in 1958 Cardinal Siri was elected, but not elevated, to the see of Peter, is one sedevacantist?
    Tommaso
    + IHSV


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20761
    • Reputation: +11445/-5598
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #290 on: February 13, 2020, 02:04:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • OT: if one believes that in 1958 Cardinal Siri was elected, but not elevated, to the see of Peter, is one sedevacantist?

    Technically, the term sedevacantist would not have applied for someone who believed that Siri was the pope ... before he died in 1989 of course.  Similarly, sedevacantist doesn't really apply to those who think that Benedict XVI is still pope ... rather than Francis.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1090
    • Reputation: +240/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #291 on: February 14, 2020, 05:31:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not so, I actually hope that at some point in time that they are proven right the only way possible - by a future pope declaring as much. But if they are wrong, then they will suffer the consequences of being wrong. For non-sedes, this is the risk we are not willing to take, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to ever even consider taking that risk. Do not mistake my lack of liberal thinking with bad will and wishful thinking.

    +ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition. He never thought it was a good idea or ever told anyone to become a sede, but he did expel sedes from his seminaries, who in turn went off and started their own sede groups.

    Still, best if sedes stick to referencing their own, like Ibranyi and Dimonds, Fr. Cekada and +Sanborn and +CMRI and etc,. After all, it only makes sense that non-sedes never reference sedes to support non-sedeism, just as it makes no sense whatsoever to reference +ABL to support sedeism as if he was a supporter of it.

     
    well there aren't any sedes with the same stature as ABL to reference.  Sedes are using ABL to basically say, well even the founder of R + R didn't think Sedevacantism was *heresy* and its adherents outside the Church.  I think its fair to appeal to him for that, albeit he could have been wrong.

    That being said, you say "if they are wrong they will suffer the consequences of being wrong."  That might be the case, but its also possible God would show mercy.  I think that's more likely actually.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20761
    • Reputation: +11445/-5598
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #292 on: February 14, 2020, 05:37:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • well there aren't any sedes with the same stature as ABL to reference.  Sedes are using ABL to basically say, well even the founder of R + R didn't think Sedevacantism was *heresy* and its adherents outside the Church.  I think its fair to appeal to him for that, albeit he could have been wrong.

    That being said, you say "if they are wrong they will suffer the consequences of being wrong."  That might be the case, but its also possible God would show mercy.  I think that's more likely actually.

    Thanks, ByzCat.  Indeed, the point of the +Lefebvre reference is exactly as you stated.  So many of the most dogmatic sedevacantists dishonestly try to portray +Lefebvre as the same.  Yes, of course he could have been wrong.  I would actually prefer one of these to say, "Yes, +Lefebvre was tolerant of sedevacantism, but I think that he was wrong."  THAT would show a bit of sincerity and honesty that I would find refreshing.  But there's this subtle form of +Lefebvre-worship out there where one almost gets the feeling that +Lefebvre has become some rule of faith and to disagree with him tantamount to heresy.  You can respect the man and hold in in great esteem while disagreeing with some things he said or did ... as I in fact do.  I have tremendous respect and admiration for him, but I disagree with some of his thinking ... especially, as you know, on the critical EENS issue.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +3161/-1395
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #293 on: February 14, 2020, 05:47:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    But there's this subtle form of +Lefebvre-worship out there where one almost gets the feeling that +Lefebvre has become some rule of faith and to disagree with him tantamount to heresy.
    Exactly.  +ABL would be the first to shout loudly at everyone that he doesn't know everything.  This is the normal attitude of saints.
    .
    Theologically speaking, I've learned a ton in reading Fr Wathen's books and listening to his sermons.  Even though I originally took many of his arguments as my own, I'm open to reading why he's wrong on this or that topic.  Obviously, he's not perfect in all things but no one is.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1090
    • Reputation: +240/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #294 on: February 14, 2020, 07:22:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks, ByzCat.  Indeed, the point of the +Lefebvre reference is exactly as you stated.  So many of the most dogmatic sedevacantists dishonestly try to portray +Lefebvre as the same.  Yes, of course he could have been wrong.  I would actually prefer one of these to say, "Yes, +Lefebvre was tolerant of sedevacantism, but I think that he was wrong."  THAT would show a bit of sincerity and honesty that I would find refreshing.  But there's this subtle form of +Lefebvre-worship out there where one almost gets the feeling that +Lefebvre has become some rule of faith and to disagree with him tantamount to heresy.  You can respect the man and hold in in great esteem while disagreeing with some things he said or did ... as I in fact do.  I have tremendous respect and admiration for him, but I disagree with some of his thinking ... especially, as you know, on the critical EENS issue.
    I'm uncertain whether or not Lefebvre is right objectively speaking, but subjectively speaking I seriously can't believe that someone who in good faith just can't see how these guys could be popes would be damned for that, but of course "in good faith" is a point on which it is easy to defend oneself.

    My main issue on the EENS stuff is not that people disagree with Lefebvre, but rather that in the way they're arguing for it I just don't see how they think Lefebvre was wrong in good faith.  Like the arguments that are being made by Last Tradhican and Stubborn are so simplistic that *if* they are true, they are *obviously* true and there is no good reason why all the trad clergy would be disagreeing.  The disagreement seems to shed doubt that dogma works the way they think it does, unless they're all in bad faith.

    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 388
    • Reputation: +50/-33
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #295 on: February 15, 2020, 02:30:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @ ByzCat3000

    1. Do the Catholic Eastern Churches that are in communion with the Roman Church teach EENS rigorously (i.e. literal interpretation)?

    2. What is Eastern Catholic Church's position regarding BoD?

    3. What are the fundamental differences in doctrines between pre Vatican II Roman Catholics Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, besides differences in public expression of doctrine (liturgy, ect)?

    4. As far as you know, did pre Vatican II doctrine consider a faithful of the Eastern Catholic Church saved if he died in in communion (with its Eastern Catholic Church)?

    Can you point me to a good, active, thread regarding differences between the 21 Catholic Churches (Mainly Roman vis a vis the others). Thank you for investing your time to teach me about Eastern Catholic Churches.

    Tommaso
    + IHSV


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10146
    • Reputation: +3985/-958
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #296 on: February 15, 2020, 04:51:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • well there aren't any sedes with the same stature as ABL to reference.  Sedes are using ABL to basically say, well even the founder of R + R didn't think Sedevacantism was *heresy* and its adherents outside the Church.  I think its fair to appeal to him for that, albeit he could have been wrong.

    That being said, you say "if they are wrong they will suffer the consequences of being wrong."  That might be the case, but its also possible God would show mercy.  I think that's more likely actually.
    Yes, you are correct, that is one of the reasons the sedes reference him, which in doing so infers that he believed "whichever position one chooses to take, God will accept." To me, due to the gravity of the choice, this is liberal thinking to which we are all susceptible, it is not traditional thinking nor clear Catholic thinking, and +ABL certainly never inferred any such thing.  

    Certainly God will show His mercy, of that there is no question, yet the consequences of being wrong still entail a certain degree of some type of punishment, this is all the reason we need to not insist that the Chair is Vacant. So like Lad, what you are saying is that our suffering may (or may not) be less, depending on our culpability.

     
     
    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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10146
    • Reputation: +3985/-958
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #297 on: February 15, 2020, 05:16:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My main issue on the EENS stuff is not that people disagree with Lefebvre, but rather that in the way they're arguing for it I just don't see how they think Lefebvre was wrong in good faith.  Like the arguments that are being made by Last Tradhican and Stubborn are so simplistic that *if* they are true, they are *obviously* true and there is no good reason why all the trad clergy would be disagreeing.  The disagreement seems to shed doubt that dogma works the way they think it does, unless they're all in bad faith.
    My opinion is that +ABL thought what was (and still is) commonly taught the last 1000 years and more by many theologians, it is for this reason that the dogma had to be defined three times, and imo, needs to be defined again and again - as often as contrary ideas prevail. Why did not the theologians accept it as declared?

    No matter how it's worded by theologians, the confused and contrary teachings of the idea that there is indeed salvation outside of the Church is centuries old and brings a message that is a very welcoming thing to most people, which is why they cling to it.

    If we are to understand sacred dogma as the Church understands it, then per V1, we are to understand it "as once declared".
    This not only makes sense, it is absolutely essential that we understand it this way. By the same token, if we are to believe that the way the Church understands it is that those outside of the Church can be saved because they are actually united to the Church by desire and longing, then the idea that most people are saved, prevails - which is contrary to sacred dogma and the words of Our Lord.



       
       
    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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20761
    • Reputation: +11445/-5598
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #298 on: February 15, 2020, 08:19:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @ ByzCat3000

    1. Do the Catholic Eastern Churches that are in communion with the Roman Church teach EENS rigorously (i.e. literal interpretation)?

    2. What is Eastern Catholic Church's position regarding BoD?

    3. What are the fundamental differences in doctrines between pre Vatican II Roman Catholics Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, besides differences in public expression of doctrine (liturgy, ect)?

    4. As far as you know, did pre Vatican II doctrine consider a faithful of the Eastern Catholic Church saved if he died in in communion (with its Eastern Catholic Church)?

    Can you point me to a good, active, thread regarding differences between the 21 Catholic Churches (Mainly Roman vis a vis the others). Thank you for investing your time to teach me about Eastern Catholic Churches.

    Let's start with #4.  Of course, the Church has always considered Eastern Rite Catholics to be fully Catholics ... unlike the Eastern Orthodox.

    As for their doctrine, I find them to be a little more conservative than the mainstream Novus Ordo ... especially with regard to EENS, but not perfectly solid.  I know the brother of the "Major Archbishop" (head prelate) of the Ukrainian Catholic Rite; he happens to be stationed over here in Akron, OH of all places.  But, then again, I consider 95% of Traditional Catholics to be weak on EENS, and this erosion of the dogma was well underway for at least 100 years before Vatican II.  In fact, it's the direct cause of Vatican II ... without any doubt.  Father Feeney was the first to really key on what was going on.  Ultimately the decay traces its roots back to the late 16th-century Jesuits (and one Franciscan) who began to float "Rewader God" theory ... to explain the plight of the newly-discovered natives in the Americas.  Honestly, BoD itself was not a major issue, since in the St. Robert Bellarmine / St. Thomas view, it was limited to catechumens and those who publicly professed the faith and adhered visibly to the Church.  It was not unlike how Karl Rahner accurately described the attitude of the Church Fathers.  If there was some thought that these could be saved, it was only because the already adhered visibly to the Church.  So ecclesiology was not impacted greatly by classic BoD.  With "Rewarder God" theory, there's an invisible part of the Church that is no longer co-extensive with the visible ... which is EXACTLY what Vatican II's "subsistence" ecclesiology is describing.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 615
    • Reputation: +169/-234
    • Gender: Male
    Re: EENS for baptized Christians
    « Reply #299 on: February 15, 2020, 01:39:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 3. What are the fundamental differences in doctrines between pre Vatican II Roman Catholics Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, besides differences in public expression of doctrine (liturgy, ect)?
    These are rather odd questions. You do understand that Eastern Catholic Churches (ECCs) are Roman Catholic just like the Roman Rite? The ECCs recognize the Pope. That means, in a post-V2 world, they recognize V2. The ECCs, however, did not have the big revolution that happened in the Roman Rite, and V2 had relatively little impact on most of the Eastern Churches for various reasons.

    In practice, Ukrainian-trained clergy are generally conservative, though some things might require a bit of explanation. Nearly all the problems I've encountered in the Ukrainian church were with biritual N.O. trained priests.


     

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