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

Author Topic: Priests who believe EENS  (Read 3328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ferdi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Priests who believe EENS
« on: December 27, 2021, 06:36:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30138
    • Reputation: +17685/-4438
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #1 on: December 27, 2021, 07:11:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1164
    • Reputation: +533/-109
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #2 on: December 27, 2021, 07:28:36 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    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.
    "We dare not even start to hope until the Faith, the true Faith, and its revealed content, are secured in our minds. Only in terms of Faith do we dare to hope."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30138
    • Reputation: +17685/-4438
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #3 on: December 27, 2021, 07:56:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Online DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5520
    • Reputation: +3069/-447
    • Gender: Male
    • Lukewarm
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #4 on: December 27, 2021, 09:27:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "Any man who... attempts to deprive the Sacred Heart of divine worship and glory - thereby convicts himself of heresy." - Cdl. Manning

     "We can, then, say, that the soul is of as much value as the blood of a God." - St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermon for the 2nd Sunday after Easter


    Offline Ferdi

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 7
    • Reputation: +2/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #5 on: December 28, 2021, 12:01:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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".
    Thank you, I agree with everything in your post, including the non-quoted part. And I do not find any issue with someone who believes catechumens can be saved - though Lefebvre's famous reply to the African boy who asked for baptism is sad. Even BoD supporters admit that perfect contrition is necessary for it, so he was basically telling him "just have perfect contrition, it is not that hard".
    It seems like you have been more successful than I with the SSPX. So far I have talked to one priest about the issue of Sedevacantism and he provided me with material which claimed that notorious heretics who partake in the life of the Church are members of the Church. To another I talked about BoD and he claimed it had always been taught by the Church, even for those who do not possess the faith.

    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.
    Thank you for your reply. I will do my best and see what is the best course of action. There is also the issue of una cuм masses concerning which I am on the fence. Too many issues, too little time, and too much temptation to claim that everyone is a heretic except me.

    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.
    This is also the conclusion I find the most likely. It is Molinism, is it not?

    Offline Francis Xavier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 13
    • Reputation: +3/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #6 on: January 20, 2022, 09:52:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • One of the mistakes made by the dogmatic Dimondite crowd is in fact to equate BoD with EENS.

    That would be an exaggeration, but strictly analyse, it isn't wrong, for catechumens are not Catholics and not inside the Church. While not as notorious as salvation without explicit faith, nevertheless it is faulty.

    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. 


    I would agree that BoD with explicit faith is understandable and have more room to err in good faith, but how could you be OK with someone who hold a theological position you consider erroneous? Follow that path logically, if not reject EENS, they would either denies the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for entrance into the Church, or water is absolutely necessary for the Sacrament. Both of them, in light of the dogmatic definitions, are heresies.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30138
    • Reputation: +17685/-4438
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #7 on: January 20, 2022, 10:15:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would agree that BoD with explicit faith is understandable and have more room to err in good faith, but how could you be OK with someone who hold a theological position you consider erroneous? Follow that path logically, if not reject EENS, they would either denies the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for entrance into the Church, or water is absolutely necessary for the Sacrament. Both of them, in light of the dogmatic definitions, are heresies.

    But the (non-Pelagian, non-heretical) BoDers do continue to maintain that the Sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation.  What they say though is that the Sacrament is necessary in desire.  They say it's necessary to receve in voto even if not necessarily in re.  That's a faulty argument made by many of the Dimondite anti-BoDers  You can still say the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation even if you allow for the modality of receiving it in voto.  Trent itself teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary to be restored to a state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall, but clearly holds that it can be received in voto.  About Confession Trent says, saltem in voto, "at least in desire".  Since the Church has tolerated this opinion and even made Doctors of the Church a couple of me who held that position, it would be rather presumptuous to hold that the opinion is not at least tenable.  I think it's wrong and mistaken, for reasons I have articulated elsewhere, but I don't hold that it's inherently harmful to the faith if understood as St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus held it.


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #8 on: January 20, 2022, 10:24:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.

    DL,

    I don't think that's "Calvinistic" at all. That would fit with a perfectly acceptable Thomist/Augustinian view of Predestination and Providence. As St. Augustine said regarding God's foreknowledge:

    Quote
    From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formulated this classical definition: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the favors by which all those are saved who are to be saved." St. Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes: "God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring His elect infallibly to eternal life."


    Garrigou-Lagrange, Rev. Fr. Reginald. Predestination: The Meaning of Predestination in Scripture and the Church (p. 7). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

    Do those "favors" or means include baptism or not? That is the question.

    And there is nothing wrong with a variation of the "Feeneyite" position that holds that all those to be saved will receive water baptism. I believe the "Feeneyite" position only becomes a problem if one affirms that it is impossible for one to be saved without water baptism.

    The Roman Catechism speaks in the conditional, if one were to die without water baptism, etc. Even if one agrees with the overwhelming authority as far as the interpretation of Trent's "or the desire of" baptism as indicating that the desire for baptism, with other conditions of repentance/contrition met, can justify, that doesn't preclude, or render contrary to Trent, a belief that those to be saved will receive water baptism.

    So there is no definitive solemn or ordinary Magisterium that would indicate that the above "Feeneyite" view is contrary to Church teaching; in fact, that view accords with the Thomistic/Augustinian view of Predestination and Providence. 

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #9 on: January 20, 2022, 10:30:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But the (non-Pelagian, non-heretical) BoDers do continue to maintain that the Sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation.  What they say though is that the Sacrament is necessary in desire.  They say it's necessary to receve in voto even if not necessarily in re.  That's a faulty argument made by many of the Dimondite anti-BoDers  You can still say the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation even if you allow for the modality of receiving it in voto.  Trent itself teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary to be restored to a state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall, but clearly holds that it can be received in voto.  About Confession Trent says, saltem in voto, "at least in desire".  Since the Church has tolerated this opinion and even made Doctors of the Church a couple of me who held that position, it would be rather presumptuous to hold that the opinion is not at least tenable.  I think it's wrong and mistaken, for reasons I have articulated elsewhere, but I don't hold that it's inherently harmful to the faith if understood as St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus held it.

    Yes, except St. Alphonsus recognized an "implicit desire" for baptism to suffice. 

    The "necessity" of the sacrament for an "implicit desire" for it seems to be a fictive construct simply resorted to to maintain the "necessity" of the sacrament - if in fact the sacrament is a sine qua non for an individual's salvation. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #10 on: January 20, 2022, 10:32:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And there is nothing wrong with a variation of the "Feeneyite" position that holds that all those to be saved will receive water baptism. I believe the "Feeneyite" position only becomes a problem if one affirms that it is impossible for one to be saved without water baptism.
    Please, can you explain exactly how can it be a problem when Trent teaches, literally, that since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration?
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #11 on: January 20, 2022, 10:37:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Please, can you explain exactly how can it be a problem when Trent teaches, literally, that since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration?

    It is a problem if it is a position which is contrary to the Roman Cathechism, which it would be.

    I agree with the logic of what you say, and have argued that before  myself here, repeatedly. But neither I (nor you) can acceptably be opposed to the Roman Catechism. I see being against the Roman Catechism as a "problem." 


    PS (revision) - actually, the RC in maintaining that it is possible to be saved by a desire for the sacrament accords with Trent, since, as Lad notes, the laver would still be required for justification if an explicit desire for it is necessary, and the RC talks about a catechumen who has that explicit desire.
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #12 on: January 20, 2022, 10:40:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is a problem if it is a position which is contrary to the Roman Cathechism, which it would be.

    I agree with the logic of what you say, and have argued that before  myself here, repeatedly. But neither I (nor you) can acceptably be opposed to the Roman Catechism. I see being against the Roman Catechism as a "problem." 

    Are you saying the Roman Catechism is contrary to Trent?
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #13 on: January 20, 2022, 10:42:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are you saying the Roman Catechism is contrary to Trent?

    See my PS (revision) above. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #14 on: January 20, 2022, 10:57:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • See my PS (revision).......
    PS (revision) - actually, the RC in maintaining that it is possible to be saved by a desire for the sacrament accords with Trent, since, as Lad notes, the laver would still be required for justification if an explicit desire for it is necessary, and the RC talks about a catechumen who has that explicit desire.

    The RC or Roman Catechism is the Catechism of the Council of Trent, do I have that correct? If so, that catechism does not say, nor ever even imply anywhere "that it is possible to be saved by a desire for the sacrament" neither does the Council of Trent say any such a thing.

    Can you please quote the lesson you're referring to from the catechism (PDF attached)? And if possible from the Council of Trent?
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse