Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 9487 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #330 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:09:38 AM »

Quote

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?

I know personally of one gentleman who lives in St Mary's who would drive +W to and from the airport (2 hour drive each way) and would have many in depth conversations about BOD and how it is a liberalization of EENS. This was obviously a while ago, since +W isn't part of the new-sspx anymore, but to say that conversations aren't happening is illogical.
.
I've also sent +W a few emails to his "Kyrie Eleison" website, specifically to challenge him about his famous "new mass comments". +W answered the emails promptly, was very cordial (as was I) and we had a short, but lively and mature discussion. Considering how busy he is, I'm surprised he answered my emails (and also because we've only met in person 1 time...if he even remembered me). How many other emails does the good Bishop receive on matters of BOD? It could be many, since he encourages emails. To assume these conversations aren't happening is illogical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #331 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:11:56 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2020, 09:02:22 AM

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.

Another way to say this is that the presumption is that the boy was not saved. I think it would be an incredibly rare thing for God NOT to lead any of His elect into the visible Church.

Rahner:

Quote

Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #332 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:14:39 AM »

I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.

Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.

Here's the range of theories:

1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #333 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM »

Quote

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.

Exactly. That's why one could make a *long shot* argument for a 10 year old protestant boy being saved. He's baptized, he doesn't know he's in error. If anyone is part of the "soul of the Church" it's him (since he's already a member of the body, being baptized).
.
You ABSOLUTELY cannot say the same thing about a person in a religion like Judaism, Muslimism, Hinduism, etc because THEY DON'T EVEN ACCEPT CHRIST. They aren't even "in the ballpark". At least the 10 yr old protestant boy is baptized and believes in basic Catholic doctrine.
.
It's absolutely insane that these liberal, heretic BOD'ers can lump a 10 year-old protestant boy in with the likes of a native indian, a hindu, a Jєω, or a muslim. It's comparing apples to airplanes. But once you start denying doctrine, and come up with your own "interpretations" then you lose Divine Wisdom and you quickly devolve into lunacy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #334 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:22:22 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2020, 09:14:39 AM

I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.

Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.

Here's the range of theories:

1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith

#1 is absurd, since invincible ignorance is merely exculpatory (as St. Thomas clearly explained) but does not actively supply anything

#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis

#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703

#4 and #5 are the only viable Catholic options.

But we see the BoDers mindlessly conflate #1, #2, and #3 above to make their case. It's as if they're trying to throw "stuff" at the wall just to see what might stick.

Stubborn · « **Reply #335 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:42:18 AM »

I'd still like to know why did not the theologians accept the dogma as declared?

Nearly everyone who does not accept it as declared references some theologian who taught that it does not actually mean what it actually says. If it weren't for the theologians changing what it says, I suppose others would have done so, but still, look at what has come of it.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #336 on:** February 17, 2020, 09:52:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2020, 09:22:22 AM

I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.

Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.

Here's the range of theories:

1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 is absurd, since invincible ignorance is merely exculpatory (as St. Thomas clearly explained) but does not actively supply anything

#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis

#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703

#4 and #5 are the only viable Catholic options.

But we see the BoDers mindlessly conflate #1, #2, and #3 above to make their case. It's as if they're trying to throw "stuff" at the wall just to see what might stick.

Excellent point, a bottom line! Let's etch it in stone. Can you quote the condemnation of 1703 and Vatican I quote concerning natural faith , so I can book it in my archives for future application.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #337 on:** February 17, 2020, 10:03:16 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2020, 09:42:18 AM

I'd still like to know why did not the theologians accept the dogma as declared?

Nearly everyone who does not accept it as declared references some theologian who taught that it does not actually mean what it actually says. If it weren't for the theologians changing what it says, I suppose others would have done so, but still, look at what has come of it.

1) Theologians theorize for a living, they use to theorize among themselves in seminaries as professors and students, where they were given all kinds of leeway in their "ivory towers". However, in the late 1800's that changed and they started theorizing to the laity, to the masses, and today the theories are legion. Look at the theory of salvation of the Indians by belief in a god that rewards made possible by their invincible ignorance (=they could not be reached by man, priests did not even know they existed), so they say, the theory went nowhere for almost 300 years, no laity even heard of it, till it was foisted upon the faithful in the early 20th century.

2) I do not get the impression that dogmas meant the same to those theologians like it does to us today since Vatican I defined papal infallibility.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #338 on:** February 17, 2020, 10:28:18 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2020, 05:25:01 AM

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.

I just don’t see what the mechanics are in Catholic theology for someone to unknowingly commit a mortal sin, or for someone without mortal sin to be damned. That’s my point. I get that someone with original sin alone would go to limbo, but the baptized kid doesn’t even have original sin.
I agree with Fr wathen as far as it goes. I deal with Protestants on a daily basis, my whole family is Protestant. They have a ridiculous idea that they can just separate Christ from his church and still believing in Christ is enough. That’s stupid. And not what I’m addressing

Ladislaus · « **Reply #339 on:** February 17, 2020, 10:54:47 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 17, 2020, 10:28:18 AM

I just don’t see what the mechanics are in Catholic theology for someone to unknowingly commit a mortal sin, ...

Well, I think that the only machanism would be through negligence. So, for instance, if I fail to take sufficient effort to inform my conscience, and do something that's objectively grave matter, I am culpable for grave sin ... due to the fact that I SHOULD have known it was wrong had I done my duty to inform my conscience. So, for instance, I am a Catholic but am lax about studying my faith. I go ahead with an in vitro fertilization procedure to help have a child. I don't think there's anything wrong with it when I do it. But I still commit grave sin in performing this activity because I was gravely negligent in the formation of my conscience. It's something I SHOULD have known.

That's actually where the notion of INVINCIBLE ignorance comes in. Even if you believe ignorance is exculpatory, it's only exculpatory when it's INVINCIBLE. Very little ignorance is actually invincible. So, for instance, a Protestant who knows about Catholicism cannot have invincible ignorance. Most people misuse this term and apply it to anyone who "has not been persuaded regarding the truth of Catholicism." That's not what it means.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #340 on:** February 17, 2020, 01:45:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2020, 09:14:39 AM

I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.

Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.

Here's the range of theories:

1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith

The baseline should be the common act of faith found in any missal:
Oh my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy divine son became man and died for our sins and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.
This act establishes the formal motive of faith as well as the knowledge of the existence of a divinely established social institution which presumably (if only implicitly) one must know is necessary for salvation. How can you desire (explicitly or implicitly) to enter that which you do not know exists? And why would you desire (explicitly or implicitly) something you didn’t know existed?

Motorede · « **Reply #341 on:** February 17, 2020, 01:48:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2020, 09:22:22 AM

#1 is absurd, since invincible ignorance is merely exculpatory (as St. Thomas clearly explained) but does not actively supply anything

#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis

#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703

#4 and #5 are the only viable Catholic options.

But we see the BoDers mindlessly conflate #1, #2, and #3 above to make their case. It's as if they're trying to throw "stuff" at the wall just to see what might stick.

#1 is totally absurd b/c it raises invincible ignorance to the level of a virtue. Accordingly, it would have been more charitable had the Eight North American Martyrs not preached the gospel to the Hurons and had left them in ignorance(=salvation through ignorance). All our missionary orders for conversion have vanished due to this new "virtue".

2Vermont · « **Reply #342 on:** February 17, 2020, 02:59:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2020, 10:54:47 AM

That's actually where the notion of INVINCIBLE ignorance comes in. Even if you believe ignorance is exculpatory, it's only exculpatory when it's INVINCIBLE. Very little ignorance is actually invincible. So, for instance, a Protestant who knows about Catholicism cannot have invincible ignorance. Most people misuse this term and apply it to anyone who "has not been persuaded regarding the truth of Catholicism." That's not what it means.

I have not read the entire thread, but I agree with this 100%.

Stubborn · « **Reply #343 on:** February 17, 2020, 03:17:52 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 17, 2020, 10:28:18 AM

I just don’t see what the mechanics are in Catholic theology for someone to unknowingly commit a mortal sin, or for someone without mortal sin to be damned. That’s my point. I get that someone with original sin alone would go to limbo, but the baptized kid doesn’t even have original sin.

We cannot say a person who unknowingly commits a mortal sin did not sin for the simple reason that a sin was indeed committed. We will never know in this life how often we are guilty of rejecting divine promptings which would have led us toward grace and away from sin, toward the faith and the truth, even into the Church for those outside of the Church. We won't know how often we did this till the next world when we will see it clearly.

Speaking of those outside of the Church, rather than working against, their free will works in conjunction with their inclination toward evil (which we all have due to Original Sin) whenever they reject the opportunity to gain grace. It may be a perceived inconvenience, selfishness, laziness, weakness or some other reason they choose for not corresponding to divine promptings, but they do, and do so always of their own free will. This rejection is commonly taught to be ignorance or invincible ignorance and is so taught in order to reward salvation to those outside of the Church.

What StanlyN said earlier is true, after the age of reason, a Catholic can only be in a state of grace or mortal sin. A Non-Catholic can only be in a state of mortal sin, if it were possible that he had never committed a mortal sin, then he must be guilty of the sin of unbelief as long as he remains outside of the Church, as taught in Unam Sanctam: "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."

donkath · « **Reply #344 on:** February 17, 2020, 08:28:47 PM »

Quote

We cannot say a person who unknowingly commits a mortal sin did not sin for the simple reason that a sin was indeed committed. We will never know in this life how often we are guilty of rejecting divine promptings which would have led us toward grace and away from sin, toward the faith and the truth, even into the Church for those outside of the Church. We won't know how often we did this till the next world when we will see it clearl

I think it is called material sin

MATERIALLY EVIL
Definition

Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therefore sinful, but a person does it either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.

..

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 9487 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

ByzCat3000

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Clemens Maria

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Motorede

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

2Vermont

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

donkath

Re: EENS for baptized Christians