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.

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.

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.

 
 

@ 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.

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.

Hello Stanley N, I admit my ignorance and I apologize for my repeated low resolution questions that, at times, engulf high resolution threads. I have recently opened my eyes after 40 years of culpable Catholic reformist torpor and only now I am learning correct doctrine and catechism. Please be patient with me.

I understand that these Churches are fully in communion with Rome but, given Rome's error, my doubts of Catholicism, for those who are in communion with Rome, are somewhat justified... perhaps I am a bit naive but, from my novice's perspective, not being in communion with Rome, appears to be a better predictor of one's Catholicism, than being in communion with Rome. Hence my question comparing them to the pre-Vatican II Roman, Latin Church.

I have an interest in understanding this as someone very dear to me might find it easier to convert from Orthodox Christianity to Eastern Catholic rather than to Roman Catholic but, before I present this alternative, I want to be sure that I am not moving towards just a different flavour of the same post-conciliar doctrines and the same lax EENS interpretation.

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.

And BoD?

And what about the modern doctrine that the Church of God, presumably, includes many Churches... all of which lead to God and salvation with the Roman Catholic being but one expression of God's Church? I would imagine that Eastern Catholic Churches espouse this doctrine.

I am interested in Liturgy but not in Liturgy per se. I am not scandalized by vernacular or differences in rubrics as long as these do reflect correct doctrine. For example, I am less concerned by crossing oneself starting from the right or by using leaven bread as much as rejecting the doctrine of the Ascension or of the transubstantiation, etc.. Hence my concern over Eastern Catholic Churches' position regarding EENS and BoD.

Substance before form.



Again, thank you for investing your time and sharing your knowledge. I appreciate both.

Since a new thread was made about the Eastern Catholic churches, I'm gonna remind people of what the OP was, since I don't think I've gotten a rational answer to it.

Let's imagine for the sake of argument a 10 year old Protestant child. 

He has been baptized.  

He "believes in Jesus", believes Jesus is God, believes Jesus died for his sins.

He hasn't committed any mortal sins.  

However, he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity, because that's what his parents told him.  he doesn't know anything about Catholicism.  His parents told him to just read the Bible and follow it.  So that's what he does.

He dies. 

Where does he go?  

I don't see how he can go to Limbo.  Limbo is for (some of) the unbaptized.  But he's been baptized.  He's been ontologically changed into a Christian.  So I don't see how he can go there.

I don't see how he could go to the fires of Hell, he hasn't committed any actual mortal sins, and we know per florence that to actually be damned to the fires of Hell you have to have committed a mortal sin.

So it seems to me logically that he would go to heaven.  Not because he "deserves it" per se, but because, being baptized, being regenerated, he is a transformed creature, and thus without any mortal sins on his soul, he would ultimately attain the beatific vision (perhaps after some time in purgatory.)

However, according to Ladislaus, and I think the other "feeneyites" (descriptor, not insult) I don't see how he could go to heaven.  While he's totally not culpable for this, he *doesn't* have the correct formal motive of faith.  He's trusting his own interpretation of the Bible for truth.  Not the Catholic Church.

I could be missing some fine distinction here, I just don't know what he is.

Note that my issue here is one of justice, not of emotion.  I'm not "emotionally bothered" by him ending up in Limbo, I just don't see how he could logically end up there.

Now I realize this isn't an apology for any Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. being able to be saved, but again, *that's not the point of this thread*, this one is about the baptized who have incorrect formal motives of faith.

General idea is that he commits the mortal sin of heresy. But I agree, it's hard to see how a ten year old kid who probably knows next to nothing about Catholicism could be fully culpable for rejecting it(I mean when I was 10 I think I thought Catholic and Christian were wholly synonymous, and while I might have heard "Oh so-and-so's a Protestant", I don't think I had any idea what that meant). So it seems hard for me to see how his heresy could be mortally sinful.

Yet, the boy wouldn't be a material heretic, as he's missing the rule of faith. And that a formal heretic would be saved seems contrary to EENS.

Regardless, I think this thought exercise is fairly pointless considering it only applies to such a tiny percentage of non-Catholic Christians.

I think its not pointless because it criticizes the foundation of the feeneyite system.  Like its rhetorically convenient (and thus attractive to many people) to be like "see, we take the dogma for what it says and you all don't."  But then you really examine it and there are legitimately hard cases.

I actually think the 10 year old would indeed just be a material heretic, is Catholic, and would be saved, but I don't see how that reconciles with stuff other people are saying.  

The biggest problem I have with "feeneyites" is that for all they're willing to protest against supposed EENS-deniers on forums, I have NEVER seen the 99% of Trad clergy who (apparently) deny it to a far greater extent ever get grilled on it. Many of these people see Bishop Williamson as their hero, and yet they neither defer to him nor do they correct him on his error. You'd think they'd be uncomfortable about the leader of their movement denying a Catholic dogma, even if done materially and in good faith.

And yet they don't really care, they only care when Larry from Tennessee does it. Because Larry is clearly more likely to spread the "error" than a Bishop.

I don't think they're denying it, but I see your point.  I defer to the trad clergy on this TBH.