Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15236 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #420 on:** February 23, 2020, 09:38:10 AM »

Some of you are just hopeless. You don't like EENS, and you are dead set on promoting the notion that all manner of non-Catholics can belong invisibly to the Church and can therefore be saved. None of you are interested in the BoD of St. Thomas or St. Robert Bellarmine, but merely try to use that concept to undermine EENS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #421 on:** February 23, 2020, 09:41:34 AM »

Quote from: Legiter on February 23, 2020, 08:21:33 AM

The same sort of thinking also applies to encyclicals. They do not bind Catholics under pain of sin, but it doesn't mean you can reject them either. Pius XII made this clear: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent 'He who heareth you, heareth me.'; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." Humani Generis (1950), D 2313.

But then it was OK for the Jesuits to come along in the mid 1500s and reject the prior 1500 years of Catholic teaching that explicit knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation? St. Alphonsus admits that "all the Scriptures and Church Fathers" oppose this opinion. Even Modernists like Rahner and Dulles admit this. They just think it's OK for Church doctrine to change ... as Modernists do. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you consider it illegitimate to reject any teaching in an approved work, then you must denounce the original "Rewarder God" theory innovation as illegitimate also.

Stubborn · « **Reply #422 on:** February 23, 2020, 09:43:06 AM »

Quote from: Legiter on February 22, 2020, 07:28:49 AM

I hope that for those of you who are promoting Fr Fenney's beliefs that you accept the fact that if your position is correct then the ordinary teaching power of the magisterium is liable to error, and, therefore, the Church can teach Catholics lies. What would be the point of a catechism if it could contain error [according to the Feeneyites]? Are you actually willing to say that the Church has approved an instruction manual for the faithful that can lead them into heresy? Are you seriously going to say that for hundreds of years all the catechisms produced for Christians will lead their souls to hell?

His Holiness Clement XIII stated that it's impossible for the Roman Catechism to contain error. Therefore, if you're willing to say the catechisms have taught error, because they teach BoD, then you contradict these infallible words of HH. Submit to Church teaching: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm

Like most, you have the wrong idea of what the Church's Magisterium is. FWIW, the teaching of the Church's Magisterium is that the sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation. Trent repeats this teaching infallibly in Session 7, Canon 4.

The first part of this canon is on salvation, not Justification:
"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous...let him be anathema".

The second part of this canon is on Justification, not salvation.
"...and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema".

Legiter · « **Reply #423 on:** February 23, 2020, 12:20:28 PM »

I understand, gentlemen, where you are coming from, but Pius IX is pretty clear in his words on invincible ignorance. Of course a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life won't be saved. That is a fact. However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them. It is that simple. This website thoroughly refutes Feeneyism: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/brother-peter-dimonds-latest/

Legiter · « **Reply #424 on:** February 23, 2020, 12:39:03 PM »

Another good read: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/how-feeneyism-is-like-calvinism/

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #425 on:** February 23, 2020, 12:44:21 PM »

Quote from: Legiter on February 23, 2020, 12:20:28 PM

I understand, gentlemen, where you are coming from, but Pius IX is pretty clear in his words on invincible ignorance. Of course a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life won't be saved. That is a fact. However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them. It is that simple. This website thoroughly refutes Feeneyism: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/brother-peter-dimonds-latest/

I too believe that BOD is a teaching of the Church, however please remember that invisible ignorance never saved anyone. Venerable Pius IX taught that no one is condemned on account of their invincible ignorance of the Church, not that they are saved due to it.

Legiter · « **Reply #426 on:** February 23, 2020, 12:56:31 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 23, 2020, 12:44:21 PM

I too believe that BOD is a teaching of the Church, however please remember that invisible ignorance never saved anyone. Venerable Pius IX taught that no one is condemned on account of their invincible ignorance of the Church, not that they are saved due to it.

I agree. One is not saved on account of their ignorance, but on account of cooperation with God's grace. If they accept the truths written on their heart, and reject any false tenet, in accordance with God's grace, then we can have the hope of their salvation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #427 on:** February 23, 2020, 01:47:12 PM »

Quote from: Legiter on February 23, 2020, 12:20:28 PM

I understand, gentlemen, where you are coming from, but Pius IX is pretty clear in his words on invincible ignorance. Of course a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life won't be saved. That is a fact. However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them. It is that simple. This website thoroughly refutes Feeneyism: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/brother-peter-dimonds-latest/

Yes, Pope Pius IX is very clear.

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".

Note that the people he is talking about are not invincibly ignorant or some native on a desert island. Rather, the people are normal, have intellect, knows how to think and are intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with their invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means the people he is talking about are sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion. He is not talking about those incapable of thinking, nor is he saying those invincibly ignorant of our holy religion can be saved invincibly ignorant of our holy religion.

A Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life can't be saved, nor can anyone who dies outside of the Church. However, a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life *and* is sincerely seeking, trying to find out about our holy religion (The pope calls this: "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".) will assuredly enter the Church - provided they correspond to the graces offered. If they do enter the Church, then like all Catholics, are "able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace". Contrary to common misunderstanding of his teaching, the pope never says anyone invincibly ignorant will be saved.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #428 on:** February 23, 2020, 01:57:12 PM »

Quote

Pius IX at Vatican I: "Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

Nice job quoting 1 sentence out-of-context and also ignoring what came before and after it. You're reading comprehension is fantastic. (sarcasm alert).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #429 on:** February 23, 2020, 02:03:26 PM »

Quote

However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them.

How can one desire baptism if they are ignorant of the Faith/Church? How can one desire what one does not even know exists? What you are preaching is the heretical Rahner's "anonymous catholic".
.

Quote

If they accept the truths written on their heart, and reject any false tenet, in accordance with God's grace, then we can have the hope of their salvation.

No, we can have hope that God will ENLIGHTEN THEM and that they will JOIN THE CHURCH. Then, AFTER JOINGING THE CHURCH, they can be saved.

Stanley N · « **Reply #430 on:** February 23, 2020, 02:19:30 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 22, 2020, 05:11:45 AM

I am the one telling you that there is no contradiction. Before the text, he affirms EENS, after the text, he affirms EENS, the text itself *must* agree with what he said before and after it and also affirm EENS. This is elementary. "When you do not understand what is written, you must read what is written directly before and after to read it in context to understand what it means". - Second grade teacher.

If you agree there is no contradiction between EENS and BOD, what are you arguing about?

Obviosuly, Pius IX is not denying EENS. I don't know why you feel any need to repeat this. BOD is not opposed to EENS. And you now say you agree with that.

Quote

Here is a break down:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Note that the person is not invincibly ignorant or some native on a desert island. Rather, the person is normal, has intellect, knows how to think and is intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with his invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means he is sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion.

Wait, what? The person is "not invincibly ignorant" yet the text is about "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance..." ?

If someone is "sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion", then that person has access to instruction and it's a little difficult to see how that person would be invincibly ignorant. Invincible ignorance is an ignorance that cannot be overcome. Not a lot of authors give examples, but those that do usually give an example due to external causes such as someone living in the wilderness.

Then there is a book published in the UK in 1927, which gives as an example of invincible ignorance someone living in England, who having grown up surrounded by Proteestants might not be aware of the need for baptism! That's a hoot!

Stanley N · « **Reply #431 on:** February 23, 2020, 03:07:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 23, 2020, 07:43:13 AM

As for Trent, it is teaching that BOTH are needed. "CANNOT WITHOUT" refers to a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause. Trent is teaching that one cannot be justified without both the Sacrament and the desire to receive it. Trent's main teaching is that the Sacraments work based on a combination of completely free grace working ex opere operato along with cooperation of the will. There's actually a Canon which condemns the proposition that the Sacraments work magically even without the will to receive them.

Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR the desire thereof.

Or in other words: You can't have C without A or B.

And you're apparently saying this means you need BOTH A and B to have C?

Let's see if that makes sense....

You can't get groceries without cash or credit.
You can't go to the store without transportation, or walking.

No, that doesn't mean both are needed. In those examples, either A or B gets you C.
But you may object that in the above examples, the reality is that either one works.
What if we tried to write the same line about somehting that really does require both?

You can't work in the US without ID or employment eligibility.

Does that say you need both ID AND employment eligibility? No, it doesn't. It looks to me just like the other 2 examples. Grammatically, it says either one or the other is needed. On the other hand:

You can't work in the US without ID and employment eligibility.

Now, THAT would say in a clear manner. that both are needed.

Also, if both the sacrament AND desire were required, wouldn't that exclude children?

So it looks to me like you are misinterpreting Trent.

Quote

We have a bunch of Trad-Prots here who like to yank one statement completely out of context and misrepresent it as teaching doctrine ... just like Prots do with Scripture. Hey, it says "call no man father," see? You do the same thing, except the only difference is that you acknowledge two sources of revelation, and they only one.

There may be some Roman Protestants around, but perhaps they're not who you were thinking of, Laddy.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #432 on:** February 23, 2020, 03:31:03 PM »

Quote

BOD is not opposed to EENS.

Oh, Stanley...

.
Obviously that would depend on HOW one defines BOD, wouldn’t it? And the entire problem we’re discussing is the MULTIPLE ways that different people understand it.
.
So how do you define it? Per St Thomas? St Alphonsus? Per Cardinal Dulles? Per Karl Rhaner?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #433 on:** February 23, 2020, 03:56:30 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 23, 2020, 03:07:29 PM

Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR without the desire thereof. (Trent speaks in Latin, not English. In the Spanish, the translation says what I inserted, a second "without". Some English translations also say without twice.)

Or in other words: You can't have C without A or without B.

And you're apparently saying this means you need BOTH A and B to have C? (Correct )

Let's see if that makes sense....

You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball.

If an adult could be baptized by water or faith, then a person could be water baptized when he has no faith or desire baptized without water.

You can't get groceries without cash or credit.
You can't go to the store without transportation, or walking.

No, that doesn't mean both are needed. In those examples, either A or B gets you C.
But you may object that in the above examples, the reality is that either one works.
What if we tried to write the same line about somehting that really does require both?

You can't work in the US without ID or employment eligibility.

Does that say you need both ID AND employment eligibility? No, it doesn't. It looks to me just like the other 2 examples. Grammatically, it says either one or the other is needed. On the other hand:

You can't work in the US without ID and employment eligibility.

Now, THAT would say in a clear manner. that both are needed.

Also, if both the sacrament AND desire were required, wouldn't that exclude children? (the desire comes from the godparents. The Church teaches that.)

So it looks to me like you are misinterpreting Trent.

There may be some Roman Protestants around, but perhaps they're not who you were thinking of, Laddy.

See comments in red.

Nevertheless, if Trent is teaching as you say, that one can be baptized by explicit desire, it means nothing to you, since you reject that teaching in your belief that people can be saved who have no desire to be baptized, or to be Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. You are up the creek without a paddle.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #434 on:** February 23, 2020, 03:58:36 PM »

BODers say that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Council of Trent, while at the same time they totally reject what they say Trent teaches, BOD of the catechumen, by their REAL belief that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Trent does not clearly teach baptism of desire of the catechumen, yet they cling on to the ONLY "dogma that teaches BOD", which is not clear, meanwhile, they reject the CLEAREST dogma on EENS, from the Coucil of Florence, that reiterates the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, and is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and is not opposed by any Father, Doctor, saint or council, the need to believe explicitly in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, that they reject completely! They reject the very line of Trent that they always bring up, and they reject all the dogmas on EENS to arrive at their real belief, that anyone can be saved in any religion. They reject ALL the dogmas on EENS.

The BODers say this unclear dogmatic decree means that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity:

Quote

Quote

Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

[color]

Unclear? Ladislaus has here many times pointed out that the Trent quote means you need both baptism and explicit desire, which he can explain further here himself, but I will add that in the Spanish translation it is very clear that you need both it says "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof". And this makes all sense to me because coming from a Spanish background, my Catholic school educated relatives going back to being born in the 1890's (I am in my 60's now now) had never once heard of anything but damnation for all non-Catholics, specially Protestants. That is what I was always taught. I never heard of baptism of desire till I read the Americanist Baltimore Catechism in the 1990's. It makes sense to me that the BC would teach that anyone can be saved outside of the Church to avoid getting American minority Catholics lynched.

Quote
[/color]

Quote

http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1

CAP. IV. Se da idea de la justificación del pecador, y del modo con que se hace en la ley de gracia.

En las palabras mencionadas se insinúa la descripción de la justificación del pecador: de suerte que es tránsito del estado en que nace el hombre hijo del primer Adan, al estado de gracia y de adopción de los hijos de Dios por el segundo Adan Jesucristo nuestro Salvador. Esta traslación, o tránsito no se puede lograr, después de promulgado el Evangelio, sin el bautismo, o sin el deseo de él; según está escrito: No puede entrar en el reino de los cielos sino el que haya renacido del agua, y del Espíritu Santo.

[color]

The BODers say that this CLEAR dogmatic decree does not mean that someone has to have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved:

Quote
[/color]

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15236 times)

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Legiter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Legiter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Quo vadis Domine

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Legiter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stanley N

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stanley N

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Last Tradhican

Re: EENS for baptized Christians