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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31

Author Topic: Priests who believe EENS  (Read 65775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ferdi

Priests who believe EENS
« on: December 27, 2021, 06:36:19 PM »
Good evening,

I was wondering which clergy actually believes EENS. Apologies if that question has already been answered before.
The ones I know of are Fr. Crawford and Bishop Webster. Though in both cases it seems like the line of apostolic succession is somewhat doubtful.
Since I am a European there are not many options I know of in my home country. There is the SSPX who of course believes both in R&R and that pagans can be saved. Then there is a branch of the CMRI whose position should be clear since the case of Fr. Crawford. There are also two independent priests who split from the SSPX over the issue of Sedevacantism and who write very eloquent polemic articles which I admire them for. However, I contacted them and they told me they believe "Feeneyism" is heresy.
All in all I am a bit lost since the accusation "Feeneyism is for laypeople" seems quite true. But in the end I have to follow what makes sense from the Church's teachings and I don't see how I could arrive at a different conclusion.

Kindest regards and God bless
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Priests who believe EENS
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2021, 07:11:52 PM »
Very few priests indeed reject Baptism of Desire.

That's not necessarily the equivalent of not believing in EENS.  St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus all clearly believed in EENS, and held to versions of BoD that did not intrinsically undermine EENS.  So I think that it's important to distinguish.

I have in fact met some priests, inside the SSPX, and elsewhere, who believed that explicit Catholic faith is necessary for salvation (at least in the bare minimum as taught by the Church) even though they believed in BoD.  I would not categorize that as "not believing EENS".

I do believe they're mistaken, but that's a separate issue from your question.

One of the mistakes made by the dogmatic Dimondite crowd is in fact to equate BoD with EENS.  I think the greater dogma that's being rejected is Trent's teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Most promoters of BoD articulate their position in such a way as to contradict that dogma, and also slide into Pelagianism.

Now, those who veer off into claiming that infidels can be saved, those do in fact not believe in EENS.  They think they do, but their positions clearly reject Catholic dogma.  I doubt many of them are guilty of pertinacious heresy, but they have been confused and befuddled by their teachers, and believe that they are in fact following Catholic teaching.
Logged

Offline bodeens

Re: Priests who believe EENS
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2021, 07:28:36 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on December 27, 2021, 07:11:52 PM
Very few priests indeed reject Baptism of Desire.

That's not necessarily the equivalent of not believing in EENS.  St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus all clearly believed in EENS, and held to versions of BoD that did not intrinsically undermine EENS.  So I think that it's important to distinguish.

I have in fact met some priests, inside the SSPX, and elsewhere, who believed that explicit Catholic faith is necessary for salvation (at least in the bare minimum as taught by the Church) even though they believed in BoD.  I would not categorize that as "not believing EENS".

I do believe they're mistaken, but that's a separate issue from your question.

One of the mistakes made by the dogmatic Dimondite crowd is in fact to equate BoD with EENS.  I think the greater dogma that's being rejected is Trent's teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Most promoters of BoD articulate their position in such a way as to contradict that dogma, and also slide into Pelagianism.

Now, those who veer off into claiming that infidels can be saved, those do in fact not believe in EENS.  They think they do, but their positions clearly reject Catholic dogma.  I doubt many of them are guilty of pertinacious heresy, but they have been confused and befuddled by their teachers, and believe that they are in fact following Catholic teaching.
The biggest problem right now is implicit BoD: I haven't heard a formulation of this that isn't Pelagian. I'm interested to hear any version of implicit BoD that isn't Pelagian and actually sets goalposts.

Quote from: Ferdi on December 27, 2021, 06:36:19 PM
Then there is a branch of the CMRI whose position should be clear since the case of Fr. Crawford. There are also two independent priests who split from the SSPX over the issue of Sedevacantism and who write very eloquent polemic articles which I admire them for. However, I contacted them and they told me they believe "Feeneyism" is heresy.
All in all I am a bit lost since the accusation "Feeneyism is for laypeople" seems quite true. But in the end I have to follow what makes sense from the Church's teachings and I don't see how I could arrive at a different conclusion.

Kindest regards and God bless
It's worth noting that the CMRI won't prevent you from attending chapels or receiving sacraments over "Feeneyism", they just ask you to not proselytize. Even the Dimonds concede this and I personally have received some degree of confirmation to this. Matthew has a good view on this that holds some truth - that "Feeneyites" are apostles and want to spread their ideas. This is a drama vector. I think the Crawford case in particular has something going on that other people aren't privy to, beyond just those letters etc. I assume something else was happening. Just go to your chapel and don't blackpill and become a home-aloner.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Priests who believe EENS
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2021, 07:56:31 PM »
Quote from: bodeens on December 27, 2021, 07:28:36 PM
The biggest problem right now is implicit BoD: I haven't heard a formulation of this that isn't Pelagian. I'm interested to hear any version of implicit BoD that isn't Pelagian and actually sets goalposts.

Agreed.  And by implicit BoD, I'm not talking about the BoD implicit in intending to joine the Catholic Church (even before understanding what Baptism is).  I'm talking about what I have called "implicit faith".  Basically, a Hindu who lacks any Catholic faith can somehow, several steps of "implicit" removed from being a Catholic, "implicitly" be a Catholic.  That's hogwash and guts EENS to its core.

It also destroys Tridentine ecclesiology.  It's very simple.  If a Hindu can be saved, then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, said Hindu can be within the Church.  Now what does that make of the Church?  It's Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.

I'm OK with anyone who holds a version of BoD that doesn't destroy the visibility of the Church, such as those who hold that catechumens can be saved via BoD.  Those catechumens, as even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admitted, were already in a way considered "Christianus" and visibly attached to the Church even if not fully incorporated.

I disagree with this and do not believe in BoD for myriad reasons.  Even if theoretically possible, there's this implicit premise here that God can be thwarted in His Providence by "impossibility".  For me, the biggest problem is that the character of Baptism is essential for entering the Kingdom of God and therefore being recognized as part of the family fo the Holy Trinity, and is also one and the same as the faculty that enables us to see God as He is where we lack that faculty in our nature.  I'd be more sympathetic with a notion of BoD that allowed people to receive the character of Baptism.  But I now digress.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Priests who believe EENS
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2021, 09:27:42 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on December 27, 2021, 07:56:31 PM
I disagree with this and do not believe in BoD for myriad reasons.  Even if theoretically possible, there's this implicit premise here that God can be thwarted in His Providence by "impossibility".  For me, the biggest problem is that the character of Baptism is essential for entering the Kingdom of God and therefore being recognized as part of the family fo the Holy Trinity, and is also one and the same as the faculty that enables us to see God as He is where we lack that faculty in our nature.  I'd be more sympathetic with a notion of BoD that allowed people to receive the character of Baptism.  But I now digress.
If someone is a catechumen and they die before baptism, to me, this seems like a move of Providence on the part of God, as Calvinistic as it may sound. He ultimately knows who will and will not be saved, yet He wills that all men be saved of their own free will to respond to grace. Kind of like St. Alphonsus' notion of there being a set number of sins per person before God's justice takes them; Perhaps that catechumen's response to conversion was disingenuous? God only knows. But what we do know, by faith, is that baptism is required for salvation.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
« previous next »