Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 9463 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #315 on:** February 16, 2020, 07:15:58 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 16, 2020, 06:58:05 PM

It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".

I'm open to other ideas, but the terms you ask for are loaded as well.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #316 on:** February 16, 2020, 07:47:26 PM »

Basically this is a thought experiment that takes as a premise that it is possible to live a virtuous life without the sacraments and without Catholic instruction. I don’t know about you but when I was 10 I had Protestant friends and none of them honored their parents as they should and they routinely lied and and it was around that age that boys started getting interested in girls with all of the bad behavior that seemed to come along with it. Of course all of us post V2 Catholic boys were no better. So I would put the premise in the category of fantasy. Fallen human nature being what it is. In the real world, Protestant boys need to be converted and go to confession lest they lose their souls.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #317 on:** February 16, 2020, 07:53:54 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 16, 2020, 07:47:26 PM

Basically this is a thought experiment ...

Yes, that's a good way to describe it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #318 on:** February 16, 2020, 07:55:59 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 16, 2020, 06:58:05 PM

It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".

Yes, and I've repeated this story before. There was a professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona (SSPX) who taught that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. He was admonished by +Williamson for getting "close to Feeneyism."

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #319 on:** February 16, 2020, 08:35:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 16, 2020, 07:55:59 PM

Yes, and I've repeated this story before. There was a professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona (SSPX) who taught that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. He was admonished by +Williamson for getting "close to Feeneyism."

Honestly there are three different categories of issues that separate "feeneyites" from a standard SSPX type trad.

1: Baptism of Desire/Blood for catechumens, those who explicitly have the Catholic faith. You lean toward disagreeing with this, but you also don't care very much about it.

2: Salvation for at least some people who *don't* explicitly have the Christian faith at all. So like your Muslims who believe in a God that rewards and are invincibly ignorant, etc. This is most commonly what you guys are opposing.

3: Salvation for a baptized Christian who believes in Protestant doctrine, and is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, etc.

I'm not convinced that all who fall under #2 are damned, but I can see how that *could* be the case. They aren't entitled to anything, maybe the best they can do is Limbo. I see no *logical* problem anyways.

I can't make sense of denying #3. Like the logic doesn't seem to be there.

Stanley N · « **Reply #320 on:** February 16, 2020, 09:22:37 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 16, 2020, 04:11:23 PM

Based on what Byz said: "he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity" is a belief that is not Catholic but rather Protestant, so based on his belief, he is Protestant and not Catholic, hence outside of the Church.

This may or may not be "formal" heresy. Even a Catholic child can be badly instructed by very misinformed parents, and may believe some very protestant things.
Those in a position of instructing have an obligation to know what they're talking about. Those in a position of being instructed, much less so. An argument could be made that the minimal obligation of an ordinary Catholic layperson today is explicit faith in the the matters stated in the Creed (Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, etc.) or reflected in major feasts. (And I think St. Thomas did make that argument.)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #321 on:** February 17, 2020, 03:02:11 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 16, 2020, 07:15:58 PM

I'm open to other ideas, but the terms you ask for are loaded as well.

What would you call these saints?:

Quote

Here are St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. John Chrysostom speaking clearly against EVEN the explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen:

St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”

St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”

St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘ they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jєω or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jєω mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”

St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”

St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”

St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20: “Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”

St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #322 on:** February 17, 2020, 03:11:30 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 16, 2020, 06:58:05 PM

It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".

From Fr. Cekada, of the sedevacantes SSPV:

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Stubborn · « **Reply #323 on:** February 17, 2020, 05:25:01 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 16, 2020, 09:22:37 PM

This may or may not be "formal" heresy. Even a Catholic child can be badly instructed by very misinformed parents, and may believe some very protestant things.
Those in a position of instructing have an obligation to know what they're talking about. Those in a position of being instructed, much less so. An argument could be made that the minimal obligation of an ordinary Catholic layperson today is explicit faith in the the matters stated in the Creed (Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, etc.) or reflected in major feasts. (And I think St. Thomas did make that argument.)

I'm not questioning whether or not the child was in formal heresy (likely not imo). Yet because he believed that the Bible was all that matters, then he did not believe what he was supposed to believe in order to be saved. He died a prot and as such died outside of the Church.

The reason there is no salvation outside of the Church, is not only or necessarily due to formal heresy or other acts or crimes, rather, it is because it is a sin to *not* believe in the Church, which is Christ. This is all that is necessary to die outside of the Church. Dying in a state of unbelief is to die in sin, the sin of unbelief which. So if anything, we can say he died in sin, the sin of unbelief. Whether or not it's possible for a 10 year old to be in formal or material heresy is entirely irrelevant.

In John 16, Our Lord said: [8] "And when He is come, He will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9] Of sin: because they believed not in me". No one can believe in Him and at the same time not believe in His Church. As Pope Pius XII said referencing St. Paul, Christ and the Church are one: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself."

To further elaborate, Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"...And you will say; well they believe in Christ, and my answer is, you forget that Christ and the Church are one. If you separate the Church from Christ, you have sought to divide Christ. There is no such thing as Christ without the Church because the Church is His Mystical Body.

As St Augustine referred to this mystery; the Church is with Christ, the whole Christ, there is no salvation independently of the Church anymore than there is salvation independently of Christ. You can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one.

And this is of course the great heresy of Protestantism, they dare to separate salvation from Christ because they separate salvation from the Church. And I’m going to ask you, by what power can they be saved?"

So going strictly by Byz's description, then all we can say is that he died in the sin of unbelief and on that account, he died outside of the Church where there is no salvation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #324 on:** February 17, 2020, 05:34:39 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 17, 2020, 03:11:30 AM

From Fr. Cekada, of the sedevacantes SSPV:

.... It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Whatever else can be said about Fr. Cekada, his honesty in explicitly denying the dogma should be remembered.

forlorn · « **Reply #325 on:** February 17, 2020, 07:53:41 AM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on February 16, 2020, 03:20:38 PM

I don't think that those who believe in the EENS dogma follow a "leader" or a "movement". I can only speak for myself and I have merely reached a personal conviction. I do not even know about the "leaders" and "movements" that you cite.

I just think that, when in doubt, better not be arrogant (me, not you) trying to interpret a dogma.

Also, if strict EENS were not correct, then Vatican II would be correct as VII teaches a lax, open interpretation of EENS to include in the Church many who are, otherwise, not.

I'm referring to the fact that most of them are followers of Bishop Williamson and consider themselves part of his Resistance, yet no one seems to be making any effort to correct him?
For the mainline SSPX you have the same issue with Bishop Fellay and co.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #326 on:** February 17, 2020, 08:09:52 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 17, 2020, 03:11:30 AM

From Fr. Cekada, of the sedevacantes SSPV:

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

This is PRECISELY the emotional theology that inspired the Jesuits to invent "Rewarder God" theory. Fresh off the discovery of the New World, they were confronted with the fact that these natives had remained ignorant of the Church for 1500+ years, and they, like Father Cekada, "refuse[d] to believe that hell is their eternal destiny."

Folks, THIS IS NOT CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. We do not theologize based on EMOTION. We take what God has revealed and apply reason to it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #327 on:** February 17, 2020, 08:32:37 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on February 17, 2020, 07:53:41 AM

I'm referring to the fact that most of them are followers of Bishop Williamson and consider themselves part of his Resistance, yet no one seems to be making any effort to correct him?
For the mainline SSPX you have the same issue with Bishop Fellay and co.

They will not hear of it for a few reasons, one of those reasons is because they were taught to believe same as Fr. Cekada, that this dogma does not actually mean what it actually says.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #328 on:** February 17, 2020, 08:53:47 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2020, 08:32:37 AM

They will not hear of it for a few reasons, one of those reasons is because they were taught to believe same as Fr. Cekada, that this dogma does not actually mean what it actually says.

What's most disturbing is that most of the lax EENSers don't even TRY To pay lip service to the dogma.

When you have the CMRI publishing an article entitled, "The Salvation of those Outside the Church" (claiming it's possible) and various Traditional Catholics repeatedly stating that non-Catholics can be saved, all of them directly and verbatim contradicting defined dogma, you have a serious problem. This goes back to deLugo in the 17th century declaring that "Jєωs, heretics, schismatics ... CAN be saved" whereas the Council of Florence clearly declared that "Jєωs, heretics, schismatics CANNOT be saved."

Come on, guys, at least claim that these people are Catholics somehow. Even Rahner does that. At the very least, you have to allege that these are formally Catholic even if materially non-Catholics ... or some gymnastics like that. But they don't even bother. They don't have enough respect for Catholic dogma to try reconciling their theories with it.

I remember that Bishop McKenna asserted that the EENS definitions were merely hyperbole, an urgent warning for people to become Catholic, i.e. that the Church was just trying to scare people for their benefit.

For as much as everyone pretends to be against "Modernism," they practice Modernism here. When you can apply distinctions to a Catholic dogma that lead to claiming that Catholic teaching is in fact the VERY OPPOSITE of what the dogma actually says, then that's textbook Modernism.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #329 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:02:22 AM »

Quote

3: Salvation for a baptized Christian who believes in Protestant doctrine, and is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, etc.

Strictly speaking, as Stubborn says, we must say, per Church teaching, that a 10 year old protestant boy who died in the state of grace, being only a material heretic, is not in heaven. Does that mean this particular boy is in hell? No. Or Limbo? No. It just means that, as Catholics, this must be our outlook on salvation, this must be our missionary spirit, this must be our motivation to try to convert ALL those whom we come across in life. If EENS is watered-down, and if we think that "good protestants" can be saved (or even others of other religions), then why preach the gospel to them? Why waste our time spreading the Faith? If EENS is watered-down, then the spread of Truth suffers infinitely more. This is problem with BOD, as it is liberally understood today.

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 9463 times)

ByzCat3000

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Clemens Maria

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

ByzCat3000

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stanley N

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

forlorn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians