Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Possible strict-EENS chapel  (Read 238411 times)

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #325 on: January 23, 2026, 11:42:18 AM »


The Church has defined the following.  It's the truth of the matter, the ultimate statement.  It's above any catechism, any thought of any saint or Pope, even the holiest.  This is the Holy Ghost defining, the Holy Ghost having the last word: 

Council of FlorenceCantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains"

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #326 on: January 26, 2026, 12:16:27 AM »

Correct, Merry, thank you! Dogma is the end of theological speculation. A good example of this is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Why is it that the SSPX and other Neomodernists never quote St.Thomas Aquinas' theological opinion on the I.C. and accuse of heresy Catholics that believe in its literal meaning? They only do that with the thrice defined (Ex Cathedra) EENS dogmas because it condemns Vatican II's docuмent Lumen Gentium, (Paul VI's) Dogmatic Constitution of the (Vatican II) Church which they accept. The same docuмent which heretically states that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church". The dogma is "The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church".
 
And again:


Quote
 
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical docuмents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

 




Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #327 on: January 27, 2026, 05:15:24 PM »
Giles:  you bring up good questions.  Yes, the thoughts were in minds of theologians, saints.  The best I read was, If one had desires to be baptized, and/or receiving classes, when they die, bury them as IF they are catholic. We don't claim they are, for that is God's judgement.  We don't know. We go by what we know and that is "There is no salvation outside the Church".  

It does not surprise me that this being most important, Baptism, and EENS, is attacked by adversaries.  

What I see with BOD, is a lax, or slowness to Baptize.  I actually heard a nun say, " Oh, there is BOD, and no hurry".  Bologna I say!

Knowledge begets Attitude, begets Behavior.  KAB. Communist go by this idea. Watch out for it.

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #328 on: January 27, 2026, 05:32:24 PM »

Q. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

Baptism of Desire is not an OUTWARD sign!!  (And "Baptism of Blood" is specifically defined against as a "way" into the Church by non-Catholics.)
 

Regarding discipline, St. John Chrysostom, today's saint, had his moment when Church authorities demanded his appearance before them.

And he declined.

Many of us read this very story today -  - from Liturgical Year


He likewise gave great offense to the Empress Eudoxia, because he had reproved her for having appropriated to herself the money belonging to a widow, name, Calliitropa, and for having taken possession of some land which was the property of another widow.

At the instigation, therefore, of Eudoxia, several Bishops met together at Chalcedon. Chrysostom was cited to appear, which he refused to do, because it was not a Council either lawfully or publicly convened. Whereupon, he was sent into exile.

from The Liturgical Year

Offline Gray2023

  • Supporter
Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel
« Reply #329 on: January 27, 2026, 06:14:48 PM »
What I see with BOD, is a lax, or slowness to Baptize.  I actually heard a nun say, " Oh, there is BOD, and no hurry".  Bologna I say!
But that person had the sin of presumption.  It does not mean that BoD is not a thing because people use it improperly..

I still don't get why we argue about this sooo much.  We need to just convert everybody as best we can using EENS  Period.  End of story.