Author Topic: NovusOrdoWatch on EENS - Invincible Ignorance (Read 2825 times)

tdrev123 · « **on:** April 07, 2015, 09:05:49 PM »

This is a tradcast on NovusOrdowatch about EENs.

Anybody have comments/ refutations of what Mario is saying?

Ive never heard this argument before but it doesn't seem very Catholic...
I don't believe in Invincible Ignorance and this didn't convince me of it either.
What do Ladislaus and gang think of it?

Cantarella · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2015, 11:06:09 PM »

It is no less than an act of penance to listen to this modernist rubbish disguised in "traditional" garb. No, we do not know of any other way of salvation but actually being a member of the Roman Catholic Church via baptism and then persevering in a state of sanctifying grace until the end. This liberal is desperately looking for a loophole to allow salvation outside the Church. As ever, he plays with the word "inside", to mean "through" not "in". The progressivist error here is to believe that an invincible ignorant can actually please God without the Catholic Faith and can be in state of sanctifying grace, which is plain heresy.

It seems the whole modernist idea revolves in: what can we do in order to include the non-Catholics in the process of salvation?. What he says is called salvation by implicit desire (one can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism) or salvation by justification alone (a soul is sure of his salvation once he is justified) and the result is that there are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible and that there are two kinds of membership in the Church.

Ask this person or any other sedevacantist of the like, who have doubts about who is in and who is outside the Church if they disagree with their hero, ST. Bellarmine himself who provided a beautiful and concise definition of who is a member of the Church:

Quote

Outside the Church there can be no salvation for anyone. Who exactly is a member of the Church and who is not?

'
From this definition it can be easily gathered what men belong to the Church and what men do not. For there are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true Faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and the subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.

By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.

By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.

By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked".

No, we do know what "inside" and "outside" means regardless of modernist semantic games. It has been infallibly defined that the Catholic dogma for salvation require:

1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** April 08, 2015, 06:06:19 AM »

I made it for the first 5 minutes or so - till he said; "....Notice, that the dogma does not say, no salvation apart from membership." Easy enough to see where this is leading. In the words of Fr. Wathen:

"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2015, 08:48:45 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Stubborn
In the words of Fr. Wathen:

"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away... He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom...and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so.

There is nothing else to be said about the matter.

I really like the rest of the quote which I did not post, but will here;

He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it.

What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying."

I mean, how true is that?

Almost without fail, the very first clue that they are trying to "weasel out of it" is when they question the clear definition as if the definition infallibly left so much wiggle room as to render it contradictory, just as was exemplified in the video.

I mean, why don't they simply admit that they cannot accept the dogma? Why try to change it, claim it does not mean what it says, then argue with those who accept it for what it actually says, accusing them of being entirely wrong?

It's really quite crazy when you stop to think about it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 08, 2015, 09:52:53 AM »

Yes, the fact that the Church didn't explicitly teach that there's no salvation outside of "membership in the Church" let's them get away with making a false distinction. That's only because the equivalence between membership in and being within the Church was taken for granted and understood. Nevertheless, it does allow them to hold this particular position with being explicitly guilty of heresy. That's how heresies always arise, by way of false distinctions made downstream from dogmatic definitions. Then the Church needs to intervene again to clarify that such and such a "distinction" amounts to heresy and a denial of the dogma.

Nevertheless, this argument is stupid and non-Catholic from the beginning. Even the modern proponents of a more conservative view of BoD to NOT say that one need not be a member of the Church in order to be saved. They simply say that people can become members of the Church in voto (vs. in actu) -- cf. Msgr. Fenton, St. Robert Bellarmine, and even the infamous Suprema Haec.

So this stupid argument fails from the outset. It's the same with those bozos here on CI who keep saying that people can be saved "without" the Sacrament of Baptism. They thereby deny Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (incurring Trent's anathema in the process). No, the traditional explanation for BoD such as taught by St. Robert Bellarmine et al. is that such people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto; in this way they avoid denying Trent's dogmatic teaching by maintaining that Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification acting THROUGH the votum for it.

It's absolutely clear from Catholic teaching that membership in the Church IS indeed necessary for salvation, but some argue that this membership can come by way of votum. I disagree. There's another EENS formula which states that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father. Only MEMBERS of the Church (who have received Baptism) are subject to the Holy Father (per the teaching of Trent); Catechumens are NOT subject to the Holy Father.

But his formulation that membership is not required for salvation is PATENTLY FALSE; some argue that ACTUAL MEMBERSHIP is not required but that MEMBERSHIP IN VOTO suffices, but that's a completely different issue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2015, 09:54:14 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Stubborn
In the words of Fr. Wathen:

"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away... He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom...and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so.

There is nothing else to be said about the matter.

Yes, it's quite telling that he spends about 3 minutes explaining the dogma and then the next 26 minutes explaining it away.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2015, 10:03:19 AM »

His next error/heresy is "grace aloneism", that sanctifying grace suffices for salvation.

1) it's a circular argument; question is whether there CAN be sanctifying grace outside of membership in the Church

2) it's heretical; it OPENLY DENIES Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Even if you believe in BoD you must state that such people receive Baptism in voto and that the Sacrament REMAINS the instrumental cause of justification (aka initial sanctifying grace) even in the case of BoD.

By his own criteria, then, he's a manifest heretic and not Catholic.

This grace-aloneism (the Protestant heresy that Trent repeatedly condemned) appears to be rooted in a completely false interpretation of the condemnations against Baius that I thoroughly debunked on another thread.

Then he makes a stupid tautological pseudo-syllogism:

You must be within the Church to be saved. But if you have sanctifying grace, then you are saved. Therefore, if you have sanctifying grace, you are in the Church.

This is the typical absurd tautology that reduces EENS to a meaningless formula and completely guts the dogma.

Sorry, but this guy's a complete idiot.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2015, 10:42:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yes, the fact that the Church didn't explicitly teach that there's no salvation outside of "membership in the Church" let's them get away with making a false distinction. That's only because the equivalence between membership in and being within the Church was taken for granted and understood. Nevertheless, it does allow them to hold this particular position with being explicitly guilty of heresy. That's how heresies always arise, by way of false distinctions made downstream from dogmatic definitions. Then the Church needs to intervene again to clarify that such and such a "distinction" amounts to heresy and a denial of the dogma.

Nevertheless, this argument is stupid and non-Catholic from the beginning. Even the modern proponents of a more conservative view of BoD to NOT say that one need not be a member of the Church in order to be saved. They simply say that people can become members of the Church in voto (vs. in actu) -- cf. Msgr. Fenton, St. Robert Bellarmine, and even the infamous Suprema Haec.

Totally agree.

I'd say it's beyond stupid - it's insane.

I mean, why even bother to reference EENS at all if all you are going to do is attempt to explain it away, explain that it does not mean what it says? Why not put out an honest video already saying that "No salvation outside the Church does not mean what it says"? At least that would be honest - I mean, don't they listen to themselves?

That video is the same thing LoT posts about, re: the salvation of those outside the Church.

Arvinger · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2015, 11:12:25 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's another EENS formula which states that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father. Only MEMBERS of the Church (who have received Baptism) are subject to the Holy Father (per the teaching of Trent); Catechumens are NOT subject to the Holy Father.

Exactly, Pope Pius XI emphasized this clearly in Mortalium Animos:

Quote from: Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

The notion of salvation through sanctifying grace while being in invincible ignorance is simply irreconcilable with this teaching of Pope Pius XI. The "invincibly ignorant" Muslim or Hindu does not accept, recognize nor obey the successor of Peter, thus he cannot be in the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2015, 01:40:23 PM »

So here's his final argument.

As an aside, he keeps interjecting this very diabolical-sounding voice grumbling "Tradcast" between the various sections of audio.

If someone is baptized as an infant, even if in a Protestant sect, then the person enters a state of sanctifying grace. But the only way to lose sanctifying grace is to commit a mortal sin. So if this person grows up a Protestant but never pretinaciously embraces heresy, then the person remains in a state of grace. But since the person does not profess the true faith, he's not a member of the Church. So therefore it's possible for a person who's not a member of the Church to be in a state of sanctifying grace.

That's completely false, for the infused supernatural faith and charity must be accompanied and affirmed by the proper dispositions for Baptism once the person reaches the age of reason. Take the case, for instance, of someone who is baptized as an infant but then is raised by animists. That supernatural faith ceases by simple privation, due to lack of faith, even if there's no conscious sin against the faith, due to atrophy and the lack of conscious acceptance.

If, on the other hand, you do find someone among the Protestants, especially a young person, who happens to have so rudimentary and ichoate a state of faith that he still he actively embraces the faith with the necessary supernatural and infallible formal motive of faith, that person is a CATHOLIC who's simply in purely material heresy and no more ceases to profess the faith than any other CATHOLIC who has fallen into material heresy.

In addition, the profession of true faith is not a required condition of membership absolutely, for those below the age of reason do not profess the true faith but nevertheless they are full members of the Church.

So epic fail again.

And again it's quite sickening to see someone spend 26 minutes out of 30 explaining away EENS in an alleged attempt to explain it.

In the final analysis, then, he should have zero problems with Vatican II becomes he claims that Protestants and other non-Catholics can be within the Church (which is V2 subsistence ecclesiology).

Cantarella · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2015, 02:27:25 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I mean, why even bother to reference EENS at all if all you are going to do is attempt to explain it away, explain that it does not mean what it says? Why not put out an honest video already saying that "No salvation outside the Church does not mean what it says"? At least that would be honest - I mean, don't they listen to themselves?

That video is the same thing LoT posts about, re: the salvation of those outside the Church.

I don't think their intention is necessarily malicious. I believe that the issue is sentimental and it mostly works as a deluded self-deception. These people need to be convinced that non-Catholics can be saved because of personal reasons, merely because of their human love for creatures (love for creatures that supersede love for God). It is really not easy to confront the reality that only Catholics In fact can go to Heaven, especially in the feeling-dominated and pluralist society we live in. Most Catholics have many friends and family whom they love, whom they consider to be nice and righteous people, but who are in false religions and they can't just understand why a just and merciful God would condemn them to everlasting Hell.

I think that to face EENS as written and holding the strict and true interpretation of the exclusivist Catholic dogma of salvation is no less than a true test from God to see if we put our love for creatures over our love for Him and His truth. For many, it is a difficult process to come to terms with this dogma and may be a very isolating reality. Remember that the EESN dogma is the ONLY dogma the world cannot live with.

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2015, 09:17:07 PM »

I saw the tradcast up a few days ago but I didn't listen to it because it hurts me to listen to Cushingites talk about EENS. I do follow the website for their news about the Novus Ordo and the traditional Catholic world but so far I have not been a fan of their tradcasts.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2015, 03:25:07 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I saw the tradcast up a few days ago but I didn't listen to it because it hurts me to listen to Cushingites talk about EENS. I do follow the website for their news about the Novus Ordo and the traditional Catholic world but so far I have not been a fan of their tradcasts.

I lasted about 5 minutes and could hardly make it that long. Cantarella said it perfectly: "It is no less than an act of penance to listen to this modernist rubbish...."

Quote from: Ladislaus

As an aside, he keeps interjecting this very diabolical-sounding voice grumbling "Tradcast" between the various sections of audio.

I know! Terrible!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:16:10 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Exactly, Pope Pius XI emphasized this clearly in Mortalium Animos:

Quote from: Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

I haven't seen this quote in some time, but it's absolutely KEY. It completely debunks the idea that one can be IN the Church without being a member. Notice, it does NOT say that one cannot be an "actual member" of the Church without accepting, recognizing, and obeying the authority of Peter and his successors. It says that one cannot be IN the Church. This destroys the Fentonian novelty of being in the Church without being a member. It says that if you do not recognize the Pope then you are not IN the Church. This quote is an absolute dagger in the heart of Fentonism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:22:00 AM »

Oh, he also argues that perfect contrition puts one into a state of justification. But perfect contrition cannot remit Original Sin, which is not a personal fault. Perfect contrition (combined with receiving Confession at least in voto) only works for those who have also had Original Sin remitted in Baptism.

Here's another serious problem for BoD. BoD theorists admit that one cannot have access to the other Sacraments without the CHARACTER of Baptism (Sacramental Baptism). This Novus Ordo Watch buffoon claims that the desire for Confession (at least he admits that it's necessary) would be implicit in a combination of perfect contrition and desiring to do whatever God wants. Yet this person CANNOT receive Confession since he has not been baptized.