Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ferdi on December 27, 2021, 06:36:19 PM

Title: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ferdi 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
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: bodeens on December 27, 2021, 07:28:36 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.

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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on December 27, 2021, 07:56:31 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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DigitalLogos on December 27, 2021, 09:27:42 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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ferdi on December 28, 2021, 12:01:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Francis Xavier on January 20, 2022, 09:52:20 AM

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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 20, 2022, 10:15:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 10:24:38 AM

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. 

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 10:30:33 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 10:32:36 AM
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?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 10:37:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 10:40:44 AM
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?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 10:42:54 AM
Are you saying the Roman Catechism is contrary to Trent?

See my PS (revision) above. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 10:57:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 11:04:16 AM

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?

"Nor even imply?"

Here:

Quote
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."


And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

Here:

Quote
Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 11:40:53 AM

"Nor even imply?"

Here:

Quote
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."

And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

Here:
Ok, the RC first off states there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. This is why for adults there is a delay, but not for infants. However, when there is a danger of death, read the very next chapter, do that and you will see the RC teaches that:

Quote
In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death,
Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.
This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one
baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the
faith.

To continue with  the first part where it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Grace and righteousness are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor the RC are talking about the attainment of salvation, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living.

So yes, their intention etc. "will avail", which is to say will help, or aid them, and be of use toward grace and righteousness, which is justification, but it does not reward or even give them grace or righteousness, nor does it mean it will reward them salvation.

So your concern of being opposed to the RC really has no basis.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 20, 2022, 11:45:34 AM
I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.

St. Fulgentius mentioned a case of some young man about to die and said that is confession (aka profession of faith) wold avail for his salvation ... and then added ... since it preserved him in life until he could be baptized.  I believe that's the sense of Trent here.  That due to the strengh of one's votum to receive Baptism, God would pevent some circuмstance from getting in the way.  One problem is the translation of what I Latin means more "circuмstance" to an "accident" (which implies a fatal accident but doesn't have that same sense in Latin).
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 12:03:00 PM

It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."

And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

Here:

Ok, the RC first off states there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. This is why for adults there is a delay, but not for infants. However, when there is a danger of death, read the very next chapter, do that and you will see the RC teaches that:

To continue with  the first part where it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Grace and righteousness are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor the RC are talking about the attainment of salvation, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living.

So yes, their intention etc. "will avail", which is to say will help, or aid them, and be of use toward grace and righteousness, which is justification, but it does not reward or even give them grace or righteousness, nor does it mean it will reward them salvation.

So your concern of being opposed to the RC really has no basis.

It has a very good basis under a natural reading, especially considering the prior section about the danger to infants in delaying baptism. 

As I said, what is that "danger": that, in case they die, there is no other remedy to salvation other than baptism. Again, look at the context regarding the infants, and consider that catechumen "are not attended with the same danger" (quoting the catechism):


Quote
Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Catechumens, who are capable of both desire for baptism and repentance (unlike infants), don't have that danger. In other words, they do have a means of salvation other than baptism if they were to die without the laver. 

You will persist with your reading, and I will with mine, which of course I think is far stronger and the correct reading. 


Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.

St. Fulgentius mentioned a case of some young man about to die and said that is confession (aka profession of faith) wold avail for his salvation ... and then added ... since it preserved him in life until he could be baptized.  I believe that's the sense of Trent here.  That due to the strengh of one's votum to receive Baptism, God would pevent some circuмstance from getting in the way.  One problem is the translation of what I Latin means more "circuмstance" to an "accident" (which implies a fatal accident but doesn't have that same sense in Latin).

Ok. But the RC's language about the danger to infants is that "there is no other remedy except baptism" if they die ("the danger of death," as the RC says), and the case with catechumen implies there is not that danger because there is another remedy or means, and implicitly, in context and by way of comparison (and the comparison with infants is clearly invoked), if they would die.

I think the context, as I said with Stubborn, supports my reading.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 12:09:31 PM
I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.
Why doesn't it mean just what it says?
"should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Because RC states plainly that there is no danger of death, there is no danger of death.

It's not until the following chapter where the danger of death is present, and in that chapter the RC teaches to "baptize at once." When it comes to the danger of dying, the RC is explicit and neither mentions nor implies that there is any other option. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 12:17:17 PM

It has a very good basis under a natural reading, especially considering the prior section about the danger to infants in delaying baptism.

As I said, what is that "danger": that, in case they die, there is no other remedy to salvation other than baptism. Again, look at the context regarding the infants, and consider that catechumen "are not attended with the same danger" (quoting the catechism):


Catechumens, who are capable of both desire for baptism and repentance (unlike infants), don't have that danger. In other words, they do have a means of salvation other than baptism if they were to die without the laver.

You will persist with your reading, and I will with mine, which of course I think is far stronger and the correct reading.
The Church purposely defers the sacrament for adults for a very good reason - and it is not because should they suffer an accidental death their intentions will reward them salvation - which is taught exactly nowhere in the RC or Trent.

Please read the rest of the chapter to see the reason for the delay in the baptism for adults...

Quote
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular
care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek
Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that
Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of
the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to
profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn
ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the
Sacrament.

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 12:33:44 PM
The Church purposely defers the sacrament for adults for a very good reason - and it is not because should they suffer an accidental death their intentions will reward them salvation - which is taught exactly nowhere in the RC or Trent.

Please read the rest of the chapter to see the reason for the delay in the baptism for adults...

Who said the delay was because there wasn't the same danger? All the RC says is there isn't "the same danger" as with infants, not that it's the reason for the delay. And how is it not the same danger? Because baptism is not the only means for the catechumen. This should be obvious.

The RC says, that for catechumen "this delay seems to be attended with some advantages." Of course there are advantages to the delay for catechumen. That has nothing to do with the issue. The advantages to the delay work because there's not "the same danger" to the catechumens as infants.

Shhssshh.

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 12:49:07 PM
Who said the delay was because there wasn't the same danger? All the RC says is there isn't "the same danger" as with infants, not that it's the reason for the delay. And how is it not the same danger? Because baptism is not the only means for the catechumen. This should be obvious.

The RC says, that for catechumen "this delay seems to be attended with some advantages." Of course there are advantages to the delay for catechumen. That has nothing to do with the issue. The advantages to the delay work because there's not "the same danger" to the catechumens as infants.

Shhssshh.
You're making me crack up out loud over here! 

Ok, you need to agree that there is no danger of death whatsoever, and also that the RC is not even implying that there even is that danger, HOWEVER, when there *is* that danger, they are to be "baptized at once." Supposing you agree, why do you suppose that is?

COULD IT BE, now this is the question; could it be that "since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration..." just exactly "as it is written; "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Francis Xavier on January 20, 2022, 01:03:05 PM
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.
Yeah, you made a good point, I admit my argument is faulty here.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 01:04:18 PM
You're making me crack up out loud over here! 

Ok, you need to agree that there is no danger of death whatsoever, and also that the RC is not even implying that there even is that danger, HOWEVER, when there *is* that danger, they are to be "baptized at once." Supposing you agree, why do you suppose that is?

COULD IT BE, now this is the question; could it be that "since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration..." just exactly "as it is written; "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?

There's a lot of cracking up going on here. :laugh1:

Why would you baptize someone "at once" if they were in danger of death? That's easy. Why would one take any chances? If a thief broke into your house and you could confront him and win with a knife, why would you forego grabbing the gun that will give you the victory if you have at hand? That would be irresponsible and stupid. 

Come on, Stubborn.

Or I guess we could keep laughing.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 20, 2022, 01:48:59 PM
There's a lot of cracking up going on here. :laugh1:

Why would you baptize someone "at once" if they were in danger of death? That's easy. Why would one take any chances? If a thief broke into your house and you could confront him and win with a knife, why would you forego grabbing the gun that will give you the victory if you have at hand? That would be irresponsible and stupid. 

Come on, Stubborn.

Or I guess we could keep laughing.

The RC tells you the reasons for not baptizing adults at once. I can tell you of a convert I knew who was baptized a Lutheran as a child, but upon hearing only the most basic of the basics of the faith, wanted to convert, and was desperate to be immediately baptized in the Catholic Church for fear of the previous baptism being invalid, sudden death and going to hell.

 In my mind that was a valid concern, but the Church does not look at it that way. The Church ONLY looks at it that way if there really is the danger of death. When it comes to the baptism of adults, the way the Church looks at it is taught in the RC, i.e they are in need of instruction, among other things.

This is the key, this is what you are missing (I think)....
You have to believe that there is no one, not one single person in the whole history of the world, who being sincere in their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, which made them  availed to grace and righteousness, that God will take before they get baptized.

It is with faith that we understand that Almighty God provided you and me and all who've ever been baptized with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it, which means simply, that if God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it.

The whole problem with a BOD is that it only works when the Divine Providence is altogether removed from the formula.

If one can save themself by desiring the sacrament, then one can skip that idea and simply desire to ascend body and soul into heaven.




Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 03:02:19 PM
The whole problem with a BOD is that it only works when the Divine Providence is altogether removed from the formula.


I'm a pretty strict proponent of the Thomist/Augustinian school on Providence and Predestination - I've even started a thread defending that view -  so I'm not advocating for the RC position, merely accepting it. 

I consider the RC trustworthy and even ordinary, universal magisterium, and I won't twist its language to come out a way I want it to, when it (to me) plainly reads as I've been arguing in this thread. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 03:18:58 PM
The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: LeDeg on January 20, 2022, 03:32:25 PM
The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.
Can you cite a source for this? That would be very helpful.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 03:38:33 PM
The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.

Ok, but obviously there wasn't any "cleansing" re the BOD sections we're discussing: they're still there.

And there's also a ton of support for the RC position on an explicit BOD in the great doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc. So I still find it trustworthy on these sections on baptism that apparently didn't need cleansing.

It would also be very interesting to see what was "cleansed."

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 03:40:23 PM
Can you cite a source for this? That would be very helpful.

I got a German edition of the RC of 1970AD, PETRUS-Verlag, D-5242 Kirchen/Sieg. It contains a preface of four pages by Pope Clement XIII, date as given in my previous post.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: LeDeg on January 20, 2022, 03:42:45 PM
I got a German edition of the RC of 1970AD, PETRUS-Verlag, D-5242 Kirchen/Sieg. It contains a preface of four pages by Pope Clement XIII, date as given in my previous post.
Did it state what it corrected?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 03:44:36 PM
Ok, but obviously there wasn't any "cleansing" re the BOD sections we're discussing: they're still there.

And there's also a ton of support for the RC position on an explicit BOD in the great doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc. So I still find it trustworthy on these sections on baptism that apparently didn't need cleansing.

It would also be very interesting to see what was "cleansed."


It shows that the RC isn't infallible, and still may contain errors. Pope Clement doesn't name any error removed.

Why ask Saints, who aren't infallible, if there's the infallible Council of Trent? All you could do is try to prove an infallible Council wrong.

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 03:46:32 PM
My edition says it's translated from a Roman edition of 1855.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 03:51:27 PM
Links to many Latin editions can be found at wikisource:

https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Katechismus
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 04:04:17 PM
It shows that the RC isn't infallible, and still may contain errors. Pope Clement doesn't name any error removed.

Why ask Saints, who aren't infallible, if there's the infallible Council of Trent? All you could do is try to prove an infallible Council wrong.

Not following you: the RC accords with the Council of Trent. And it doesn't have to be infallible to be correct: e.g., it correctly maintains God is triune, etc. I believe it is correct on BOD. 

And the fact that saints also agree with it just strengthens the trustworthiness of its position for me on the BOD question.

Let's also go back to the beginning: the RC says "if some unforeseen," etc.  I agree and absolutely believe that would be the case - "if." That, however, prescinds from the question of whether it in fact happens, which the RC doesn't assert. And Trent doesn't either. Trents simply asserts that the desire can justify, and indicates that anyone who dies in a state of justification would be saved; it doesn't assert that men are saved without baptism. 

I simply will not take the position that it is impossible to be saved without baptism in light of the RC and the testimony of the saints that concur with it. Maybe that's just me. 

 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 06:14:51 PM
Not following you: the RC accords with the Council of Trent. And it doesn't have to be infallible to be correct: e.g., it correctly maintains God is triune, etc. I believe it is correct on BOD.

And the fact that saints also agree with it just strengthens the trustworthiness of its position for me on the BOD question.

Let's also go back to the beginning: the RC says "if some unforeseen," etc.  I agree and absolutely believe that would be the case - "if." That, however, prescinds from the question of whether it in fact happens, which the RC doesn't assert. And Trent doesn't either. Trents simply asserts that the desire can justify, and indicates that anyone who dies in a state of justification would be saved; it doesn't assert that men are saved without baptism.

I simply will not take the position that it is impossible to be saved without baptism in light of the RC and the testimony of the saints that concur with it. Maybe that's just me.

The infallible Council of Trent, in the Decree on Justification, is

Quote
most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.

So you can't convince any real Catholic of anything else than the sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent teaches on justification.

Additionally, the Vatican Council says in the Creed of the same Council:

Quote
I embrace and accept the whole and every part of what was defined and declared by the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

[...]

I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.


Therefore, I won't discuss Saints and Catechisms on the topic. I prefer to adhere to infallible Church doctrine fallen from heaven, because I prefer to go to heaven, and not to hell.

Now, the Council of Trent teaches unequivocally that, since the promulgation of the gospel, no one went to heaven or will go to heaven without having received the sacrament of baptism. I will write more on this below.


(Quotes from papalencyclicals.net)



Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 20, 2022, 06:47:39 PM
Decem, I recommend that you study the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent, entirely and in detail. It is very clear and leaves no doubt. And it is pertinent, while all other sources are not pertinent (see my previous post). You should first be concerned about your own salvation for the sake of truth. Don't misinterpret the Council of Trent, just for the sake of whatever ideas you personally like or prefer.

BoD-heretics misuse one small statement in the whole decree. They misinterpret a necessary condition to render a sufficient condition. "Not without this or that" does neither mean that this is sufficient, nor that that is sufficent, nor that both this and that are sufficient. It means that both are necessary, not sufficient. It is a necessary condition not a sufficient condition. Not even both desiring to be baptized and actually being baptised is sufficient to be justified. More is needed, as the decree explains. E.g. a preparation is necessary.

Also, the decree explains that the "faith" of a catechumen is not enough. A candidate needs faith, hope, and charity infused by the sacrament. The rite even has the candidate ask for the faith. "What do you ask the Church for?" He has to answer: "the faith". Study the whole text, the decree very clearly states all these aspects. The sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification. There is no justification without the sacrament.

You understand logic and language, I don't write to make you believe what I say. I want you to study the text, having your own salvation in mind.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 20, 2022, 07:06:11 PM
Ok. But the RC's language about the danger to infants is that "there is no other remedy except baptism" if they die ("the danger of death," as the RC says), and the case with catechumen implies there is not that danger because there is another remedy or means, and implicitly, in context and by way of comparison (and the comparison with infants is clearly invoked), if they would die.

I think the context, as I said with Stubborn, supports my reading.


I don't think that's any different.  Since infants haven't attained the use of reason, they are incapabe of formulating a votum ... which would, to quote St. Fulgentius, "avail them to slavation by [keeping them alive] to receive Baptism."  I'll get the exact quotes for you.  St. Fulgentius clearly cite a case saying that the person's "confession" would avail to salvation (in Trent "avail to" grace and righteousness) ... BECAUSE it guaranteed that they'd stay alive until they could receive Baptism.  So for adults the votum can serve as a remed by "availing to" salvation in this same sense.  Here the sense of the Latin that it would avail them to grace and righteousness ... LEST some obstacle (not [fatal] "accident"] get in the way of their receiving Baptism.  I'll dig up the Latin of this at some point.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: trad123 on January 20, 2022, 08:15:40 PM
I'll get the exact quotes for you.  St. Fulgentius clearly cite a case saying that the person's "confession" would avail to salvation (in Trent "avail to" grace and righteousness) ...


The quotes have been posted before, but what is the source?



https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/implicit-bod/msg714657/#msg714657


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/fr-jenkins-on-fr-feeney/msg518776/#msg518776


https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=51891&pid=945385#pid945385




What is the source of this quote?



Quote
St. Fulgentius:
 
Let no doubt shake our mind from this view; let no one say that a man is saved unless he comes to this bodily immersion; at any rate let us not say that he can be saved without the sacrament of baptism purely on the confession of faith. For he who believes and is baptized, will be saved. And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith: we maintain that it was through the sacrament of baptism that he was saved. If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism.



Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: trad123 on January 20, 2022, 08:22:54 PM
Lad,

Someone copied at least one of your posts for a Church bulletin.

From the first link below, scroll down and look at the 12th block of text outlined in a black rectangle:



http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Bulletin-Announcements/BulletinPosts,Older_Still_Current_10.htm


http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/index.htm



Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Chapel

129 South Beaver Street
York, PA  17401
717-792-2789







Quote

Both the Sacrament of Baptism and the will to receive the Sacrament are necessary for salvation!

“But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.” St. Fulgentius
Thus the proper understanding of the passage from the Catechism of Trent:
Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
 
“If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.” St. Fulgentius
 
Notice, both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back to Trent's teaching that both the laver AND the “votum” are required for justification, and harkening back to Our Lord's teaching that we must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit.

 In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of Trent.  Trent describes the votum (so-called “desire”) as the PATH TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that “JUSTIFICATION ITSELF” (St. Fulgentius says “SALVATION ITSELF”) follows the dispositions in the Sacrament of Baptism.


 Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum AND the Sacrament are required for justification.

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jєωs and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.”
St. Fulgentius
 
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs 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.’”  St. Eugene IV, Cantate Domino

Ladislaus, CathInfo



Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Sefa on January 21, 2022, 03:13:24 AM
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.
Another option is that Sts Thomas, bellarmine and alphonsus did not actually hold those views about baptism of desire but other people sneaked them into their works after they had died particularily in the age of freemasonic illumination where they seized control of all state apparatus and publishing and usurped even those positions held by clerics. The whole 20th century has been an information and historical revisionism war so i dont trust everything i read to be authentic.

I am certain that many popes and councils have stated (as well as christ himself) the necessicity of receiving baptism and not merely desiring but not receiving it. I concede that Christ could personally baptise someone himself (with water and the form) right before their death and so if that is the bod position held then i agree but then why call it baptism of desire and not just baptism then? Bod muddies the waters and as you said opens up to pelagianism.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Matthew on January 21, 2022, 03:32:06 AM
I still think "EENS" is a waste of time nothingburger for 99.999% of people who make it their hobby and/or life's work, main crusade.

I haven't encountered any Trads anywhere in Tradition -- not even in the Indult, which is technically not part of the Traditional Movement -- that encourage would-be converts to stay in a false religion, for various reasons (they can be saved there too, water Baptism isn't necessary, etc.)

Call me down-to-earth or non-intellectual if you will, but my take on EENS is simple. Get baptized, join the Catholic Church or die the death -- the eternal death. It's simple, at least to me. I look at pagan countries and it's clear that the chances of any of those billions saving their souls is about zero if some Catholic missionary doesn't intervene. Even if one out of 10 million somehow saved their soul, who likes them odds? Missionaries are indispensable and crucial to the eternal salvation of a huge portion of the world.

I think those who argue EENS, Feeneyism, etc. should spend those dozens of hours writing Apologetics works, running an apologetics website/apostolate instead. Much more good would be done.

:cowboy:
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Francis Xavier on January 21, 2022, 03:42:00 AM
Another option is that Sts Thomas, bellarmine and alphonsus did not actually hold those views about baptism of desire but other people sneaked them into their works after they had died particularily in the age of freemasonic illumination where they seized control of all state apparatus and publishing and usurped even those positions held by clerics. The whole 20th century has been an information and historical revisionism war so i dont trust everything i read to be authentic.
That's nuts, for if it is the case, then we can doubt about anything, like the ordinary Magisterium, or canons of the Councils, there's no legitimate ground to cast doubt to the authenticity of these works.
I am certain that many popes and councils have stated (as well as christ himself) the necessicity of receiving baptism and not merely desiring but not receiving it.
I agree, not only the Sacrament is necessary, but the actual reception of the Sacrament itself is necessary. One might argue for this point from the ordinary Magisterium.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Francis Xavier on January 21, 2022, 04:09:30 AM
Even if one out of 10 million somehow saved their soul, who likes them odds? Missionaries are indispensable and crucial to the eternal salvation of a huge portion of the world.
But Matthew, I understand you say this just for the sake of argument, but common Catholic theologians agree that most Catholics go to Hell, the majority of priests and bishops will go to Hell (St. John Chrysostom). If these guys find and exploit any loophole, the evangelisation work would looses its significant as opening up the only path for salvation and just merely increasing the odds, from very tiny to very small, so to say. In my opinion, that would also affect the holy fear of God and faith in His providence. The more common "BoDers" insist on holding in the dogma EENS, but they can't exclude anyone from salvation.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 04:28:11 AM
I'm a pretty strict proponent of the Thomist/Augustinian school on Providence and Predestination - I've even started a thread defending that view -  so I'm not advocating for the RC position, merely accepting it.

I consider the RC trustworthy and even ordinary, universal magisterium, and I won't twist its language to come out a way I want it to, when it (to me) plainly reads as I've been arguing in this thread.

I agree with you that of all the catechisms I know of, the RC is the only one that actually is part of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium. 

But I am afraid I disagree with you about you twisting the language. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 04:41:35 AM
Not following you: the RC accords with the Council of Trent. And it doesn't have to be infallible to be correct: e.g., it correctly maintains God is triune, etc. I believe it is correct on BOD.

And the fact that saints also agree with it just strengthens the trustworthiness of its position for me on the BOD question.

Let's also go back to the beginning: the RC says "if some unforeseen," etc.  I agree and absolutely believe that would be the case - "if." That, however, prescinds from the question of whether it in fact happens, which the RC doesn't assert. And Trent doesn't either. Trents simply asserts that the desire can justify, and indicates that anyone who dies in a state of justification would be saved; it doesn't assert that men are saved without baptism.

I simply will not take the position that it is impossible to be saved without baptism in light of the RC and the testimony of the saints that concur with it. Maybe that's just me.
Reading what RC says, the hypothetical "unforeseen accident" could be literally anything - except death. It could even mean the priest had a flat tire on the way back to Church after administering Extreme Unction to someone sick or dying, and fixing the flat took all day to get repaired, thus postponing the baptism till the next day or week.


You said: "Trents simply asserts that the desire can justify, and indicates that anyone who dies in a state of justification would be saved"
Also, concerning all the sacraments, Trent does not assert that the desire can justify, rather, what Trent literally decrees is that without it, justification cannot be effected, and goes on to condemn what you just said with anathema.

Concerning only the sacrament of baptism, Trent decrees that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament of baptism ("laver of regeneration").
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 05:02:17 AM
I still think "EENS" is a waste of time nothingburger for 99.999% of people who make it their hobby and/or life's work, main crusade.

I haven't encountered any Trads anywhere in Tradition -- not even in the Indult, which is technically not part of the Traditional Movement -- that encourage would-be converts to stay in a false religion, for various reasons (they can be saved there too, water Baptism isn't necessary, etc.)

Call me down-to-earth or non-intellectual if you will, but my take on EENS is simple. Get baptized, join the Catholic Church or die the death -- the eternal death. It's simple, at least to me. I look at pagan countries and it's clear that the chances of any of those billions saving their souls is about zero if some Catholic missionary doesn't intervene. Even if one out of 10 million somehow saved their soul, who likes them odds? Missionaries are indispensable and crucial to the eternal salvation of a huge portion of the world.

I think those who argue EENS, Feeneyism, etc. should spend those dozens of hours writing Apologetics works, running an apologetics website/apostolate instead. Much more good would be done.

:cowboy:
Yep, this says it ^^^

I used to be way more passionate about the whole subject, anymore it's just a subject I like to get involved in, if for no other reason then just to be able to present the truth of the words of Trent in the matter.

Somehow, I find it remarkable that, because of preconceived notions so many trads will not actually believe what the words actually say, so I keep trying is all. 

The whole thing reminds me of this snip from "Who Shall Ascend?" - in this case, "the rule" is the teaching of the Council of Trent, whereas "used to hearing what is wrong" is the idea of a BOD....

"I am  reminded of an incident of my own experience. Once in grade school, in English class, Sister Ruth Virginia asked me why a certain verb form should be used, instead of another. My answer was: "The other word does not sound right." She corrected me: "No, no, no! You cannot go by how it sounds, because you may be used to hearing what is wrong. You have to go by the rule!"

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 21, 2022, 05:19:00 AM
Latin word doesn’t mean accident in the sense of a “car accident”.  It’s more like “circuмstance that could get in the way”.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 21, 2022, 05:23:53 AM
Matthew, EENS matters theologically because the extension of salvation to non-Catholics led directly to the ecclesiology on which all of Vatican II is based.  If someone were to convince me that salvation were possible for non-Catholics, then I would be forced to drop all theological opposition to Vatican II.

Major:  there’s no salvation outside the Church.

Minor:  non-Catholics can be saved.

Conclusion:  non-Catholics can be in the Church.  Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.

It’s that simple.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 21, 2022, 06:08:59 AM
Decem, I recommend that you study the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent, entirely and in detail. It is very clear and leaves no doubt. And it is pertinent, while all other sources are not pertinent (see my previous post). You should first be concerned about your own salvation for the sake of truth. Don't misinterpret the Council of Trent, just for the sake of whatever ideas you personally like or prefer.

BoD-heretics misuse one small statement in the whole decree. They misinterpret a necessary condition to render a sufficient condition. "Not without this or that" does neither mean that this is sufficient, nor that that is sufficent, nor that both this and that are sufficient. It means that both are necessary, not sufficient. It is a necessary condition not a sufficient condition. Not even both desiring to be baptized and actually being baptised is sufficient to be justified. More is needed, as the decree explains. E.g. a preparation is necessary.

Also, the decree explains that the "faith" of a catechumen is not enough. A candidate needs faith, hope, and charity infused by the sacrament. The rite even has the candidate ask for the faith. "What do you ask the Church for?" He has to answer: "the faith". Study the whole text, the decree very clearly states all these aspects. The sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification. There is no justification without the sacrament.

You understand logic and language, I don't write to make you believe what I say. I want you to study the text, having your own salvation in mind.

Marion,

I will read Trent on justification again, thank you. 

I take it you agree that the RC says or at least implies that one can be saved by one's desire for baptism and repentance if for some reason they do not receive baptism, correct?
If so, then we have to deal with the fact that the Magisterium taught something in its most authoritative catechism contrary to the faith, on an important matter of the faith and salvation itself. The implications of that, in light of what the same Magisterium has taught about the impossibility of it doing that, is staggering. 

That is somewhat different from this end times monstrosity we are dealing with: that is a falsely teaching Magisterium going back to the 16th century. 

DR
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 21, 2022, 06:11:11 AM
I agree with you that of all the catechisms I know of, the RC is the only one that actually is part of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium.

But I am afraid I disagree with you about you twisting the language.

Stubborn,

I'll give you this much: you recognize the authority of the RC, which compels you to explain how it doesn't read as I take it. 

I just disagree with your reading, and I'll respond further on that point in response to Lad, who offers a reasonable alternative reading - except on one point I think.

DR
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 21, 2022, 06:23:30 AM
I don't think that's any different.  Since infants haven't attained the use of reason, they are incapabe of formulating a votum ... which would, to quote St. Fulgentius, "avail them to slavation by [keeping them alive] to receive Baptism."  I'll get the exact quotes for you.  St. Fulgentius clearly cite a case saying that the person's "confession" would avail to salvation (in Trent "avail to" grace and righteousness) ... BECAUSE it guaranteed that they'd stay alive until they could receive Baptism.  So for adults the votum can serve as a remed by "availing to" salvation in this same sense.  Here the sense of the Latin that it would avail them to grace and righteousness ... LEST some obstacle (not [fatal] "accident"] get in the way of their receiving Baptism.  I'll dig up the Latin of this at some point.

Lad,

I think your reading is reasonable except for one thing: the RC makes a central point of distinction between infants and catechumen that "there is no other remedy than baptism" to infants. That same distinction was posited by I think the Council of  Florence, and also by Pius XII in his allocution to midwives. 

DR
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 21, 2022, 07:15:11 AM
Lad,

I think your reading is reasonable except for one thing: the RC makes a central point of distinction between infants and catechumen that "there is no other remedy than baptism" to infants. That same distinction was posited by I think the Council of  Florence, and also by Pius XII in his allocution to midwives.

DR


I'm not quite understanding your point.  Votum for Baptism serves as a remedy to the extent indicated by St. Fulgentius, that the proper votum ensures the reception of Baptism before death.  Infants lack that "remedy" and therefore could die at a moment's notice without that assurance.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 21, 2022, 07:19:32 AM
I've argued from the Church Fathers for a distinction (from St. Ambrose) between a washing from (the temporal punishment) due to sin through a "baptism" of desire, so such a one would not be punished in eternity (i.e. would end up in Limbo), but they cannot be crowned (aka enter the Kingdom of Heaven) without the character imparted by the Sacrament of Bapism.  So I, with St. Ambrose, do believe in a "baptism" of desire that can remit the poena due to sin, but does not suffice for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.  Father Feeny would call that "justification" (vs. "salvation").  Xavier Nishant cited a number of post-Trent theologians (and I followed up and read De Lugo) who held, for instance, that infidels could be justified but not saved, so Father Feeney did not invent that distinction.

There's a clear distinction made by the Church Fathers between the different effects of Baptism, between the "washing" and the "crowning".
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 21, 2022, 08:02:49 AM

I'm not quite understanding your point.  Votum for Baptism serves as a remedy to the extent indicated by St. Fulgentius, that the proper votum ensures the reception of Baptism before death.  Infants lack that "remedy" and therefore could die at a moment's notice without that assurance.

I should have quoted exactly: it says "no other means of salvation except Baptism." The "no other remedy" language is from the Council of Florence. The RC states:


Quote
Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.



This certainly and very strongly implies another remedy for "salvation" for adults. Your "votum" is not a remedy for salvation, but a means to baptism. Thus, for adults and infants baptism remains the only means or remedy for salvation under your reading, which obliterates the distinction "of salvation" as to infants.

As I said, the allocution of Pius XII totally accords with this, as does just about every catechism, doctor, and theologian since some of the early Fathers.

Could they, not being infallible, be wrong? Sure. But think of the consequences of them being wrong on such an important matter. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 09:20:59 AM
This certainly and very strongly implies another remedy for "salvation" for adults. Your "votum" is not a remedy for salvation, but a means to baptism. Thus, for adults and infants baptism remains the only means or remedy for salvation under your reading, which obliterates the distinction "of salvation" as to infants.
Ok, I am trying to see if I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that "Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism" is akin to saying "Since adults have another means of salvation besides baptism".

Is that accurate?

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Sefa on January 21, 2022, 10:36:16 AM
That's nuts, for if it is the case, then we can doubt about anything, like the ordinary Magisterium, or canons of the Councils, there's no legitimate ground to cast doubt to the authenticity of these works.I agree, not only the Sacrament is necessary, but the actual reception of the Sacrament itself is necessary. One might argue for this point from the ordinary Magisterium.
Well how is the ordinary magisterium taught but through the popes and bishops? Now there is no visible pope and no visible bishops with ordinary jurisdiction so people are getting their teaching from the freemason publishers. This is not how things should be. If anything this is showing necessity of the pope and bishops and how you cant go it alone.

I have a sniff test for authentic writings, a sort of intuition ive developed where if it corroborates itself and its contemporaries and its context and various other reasons then its authentic. But if there is something that feels out of place like st thomas deemingly denying the immaculate conception even though in his life he affirmed it, then i err on the side of forgery of thar part. I trust the church and god to not allow such confusion and heresy to be sanctioned.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 11:07:37 AM
Well how is the ordinary magisterium taught but through the popes and bishops? Now there is no visible pope and no visible bishops with ordinary jurisdiction so people are getting their teaching from the freemason publishers. This is not how things should be. If anything this is showing necessity of the pope and bishops and how you cant go it alone.

I have a sniff test for authentic writings, a sort of intuition ive developed where if it corroborates itself and its contemporaries and its context and various other reasons then its authentic. But if there is something that feels out of place like st thomas deemingly denying the immaculate conception even though in his life he affirmed it, then i err on the side of forgery of thar part. I trust the church and god to not allow such confusion and heresy to be sanctioned.
Regardless of the views held by the Fathers, the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism agree, there is no contradiction between them even though there is, or appears to be, contradiction between Trent/Catechism and some of the Fathers as regards this subject.

It's a mystery to me to why any one would quote any teaching from anyone that does not agree with the Council of Trent.

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 21, 2022, 12:49:17 PM
I still think "EENS" is a waste of time nothingburger for 99.999% of people who make it their hobby and/or life's work, main crusade.

I haven't encountered any Trads anywhere in Tradition -- not even in the Indult, which is technically not part of the Traditional Movement -- that encourage would-be converts to stay in a false religion, for various reasons (they can be saved there too, water Baptism isn't necessary, etc.)

Call me down-to-earth or non-intellectual if you will, but my take on EENS is simple. Get baptized, join the Catholic Church or die the death -- the eternal death. It's simple, at least to me. I look at pagan countries and it's clear that the chances of any of those billions saving their souls is about zero if some Catholic missionary doesn't intervene. Even if one out of 10 million somehow saved their soul, who likes them odds? Missionaries are indispensable and crucial to the eternal salvation of a huge portion of the world.

I think those who argue EENS, Feeneyism, etc. should spend those dozens of hours writing Apologetics works, running an apologetics website/apostolate instead. Much more good would be done.

:cowboy:
EENS is Catholic dogma.  It is not a "nothingburger".  Even if what you meant is that the debate about it is a "nothingburger", you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  You imply that EENS, a Catholic dogma, is detrimental to conversions and that instead of preaching that dogma we should be focused on Catholic apologetics.  Well, guess who is at the forefront of traditional Catholic apologetics and is getting large numbers of conversions?  Yeah, it is Most Holy Family Monastery (aka the Dimonds).  Most of their videos are Catholic apologetics videos.  They mostly focus on refuting the errors of the novus ordo, protestants and schismatics.  It seems like a week doesn't go by that they don't have someone writing to them to thank them for their work and to ask for help with getting baptized and/or converting to the traditional Catholic Church.  I have never seen anything like that at the chapels I have gone to (indult, SSPX, Resistance, CMRI).  One non-novus-ordo conversion in a year would be a big deal.  Dozens of conversions every year is almost incredible.  So regardless of whether you agree with their position on EENS, you should at least appreciate that they are getting many people to convert to the Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Sefa on January 21, 2022, 03:55:41 PM
Regardless of the views held by the Fathers, the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism agree, there is no contradiction between them even though there is, or appears to be, contradiction between Trent/Catechism and some of the Fathers as regards this subject.

It's a mystery to me to why any one would quote any teaching from anyone that does not agree with the Council of Trent.
I agree with you that the magisterium cant contradict itself.

As an interesting aside I have only ever read trent and the roman catechism through unnofficial mediums online and never through the official teaching transmission of the bishop... And i suspect this is the case for most catholics. So can we really be said to have read trent or whatever magisterial writing if it has been from unnofficial sources,? I would say this is not infallible in transmission of teaching unlike the magisterium which is. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 04:52:09 PM
I agree with you that the magisterium cant contradict itself.

As an interesting aside I have only ever read trent and the roman catechism through unnofficial mediums online and never through the official teaching transmission of the bishop... And i suspect this is the case for most catholics. So can we really be said to have read trent or whatever magisterial writing if it has been from unnofficial sources,? I would say this is not infallible in transmission of teaching unlike the magisterium which is.
Well, I would say that what we have as far as the RC and Council are concerned, is reliable because there is nothing at all questionable within either and both teach the true faith unadulterated. I mean they are both unambiguous and neither teaches anything contrary to other Church teachings, *and* it's all we have - and we're lucky to have them readily available. 

Pre-V2, the faithful relied mostly on their priests, who are also non-infallible, to learn from and answer questions.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: bodeens on January 21, 2022, 05:15:05 PM
I still think "EENS" is a waste of time nothingburger for 99.999% of people who make it their hobby and/or life's work, main crusade.

I haven't encountered any Trads anywhere in Tradition -- not even in the Indult, which is technically not part of the Traditional Movement -- that encourage would-be converts to stay in a false religion, for various reasons (they can be saved there too, water Baptism isn't necessary, etc.)

Call me down-to-earth or non-intellectual if you will, but my take on EENS is simple. Get baptized, join the Catholic Church or die the death -- the eternal death. It's simple, at least to me. I look at pagan countries and it's clear that the chances of any of those billions saving their souls is about zero if some Catholic missionary doesn't intervene. Even if one out of 10 million somehow saved their soul, who likes them odds? Missionaries are indispensable and crucial to the eternal salvation of a huge portion of the world.

I think those who argue EENS, Feeneyism, etc. should spend those dozens of hours writing Apologetics works, running an apologetics website/apostolate instead. Much more good would be done.

:cowboy:
I think actually most people hold this view but the problem is the theologians etc promulgating heretical ecclesiology through docuмents like Unitatis redintegratio. The ecclesiology of VII percolated for quite some time and it's impossible to truly address any of the bad docuмents in VII without addressing EENS. One of the interesting things about almost everyone is that they correctly identify ecclesiology in general as the biggest issue with VII but don't follow that any deeper. I can even see that you actively identify this because religious liberty and the new "canonizations" all are downstream of the same problem (EENS) but what of it? Most see these docuмents in mostly a vacuum rather than an ecosystem. You could easily say that all VII docuмents with issues all share the same poisoned water source in that said ecosystem, being Rahnerite ecclesiology. Seeing how the issues started to happen in the 1700s even with Jesuit missionaries being condemned for how they teach concepts like the Trinity to savages and other conversion elements were being played with fast and loose it's unsurprising we are here today.

I actually do disagree with your assertion that Indulters share even a remotely similar view to you; the founding docuмents for Ecclesia Dei communities accept all articulations of VII, while the classic RnR position sees "error" in these docuмents and potentially heretical teaching. If you look at the official Ecclesia Dei responses to TC it's clear this is still the modus operandi for them because they accept VII as valid and want to coexist with an antichurch/antihierarchy that accepts a heretical ecclesiology. The SSPX classic position is truly that there is a visible Church but the Indult de facto denies this fact.

This is honestly why XavierSem interested me quite a bit, he held an ostensibly SSPX friendly position but denied the dogmatic fact (a visible Church) that differentiated it from the Indult. I think the SSPX's weakness on EENS is why the Indulters and NOers fit in well there and have transformed that organization. He's part of a greater flood here, and I think this trend is important.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 21, 2022, 07:20:39 PM
I take it you agree that the RC says or at least implies that one can be saved by one's desire for baptism and repentance if for some reason they do not receive baptism, correct?

It looks to me like a lame try to spread one more peculiar and inconsistent sort of BoD. As if our poor Lord might possibly suffer from the hardship that a predestinated child might be snatched from what the Father has given to him, by pure accident, while He luckily was smart enough to frustrate this danger in the case of some adults.


If so, then we have to deal with the fact that the Magisterium taught something in its most authoritative catechism contrary to the faith, on an important matter of the faith and salvation itself. The implications of that, in light of what the same Magisterium has taught about the impossibility of it doing that, is staggering.

They had a commission which was responsible for the RC. The infallible extraordinary Magisterium teaches that

Quote from: Dei filius
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.

I can't see how the ordinary and universal magisterium ever proposed the RC as "to be believed as divinely revealed". It was published to be used as a tool by parish priests.


That is somewhat different from this end times monstrosity we are dealing with: that is a falsely teaching Magisterium going back to the 16th century.

Even given that I, in principle, can't see a problem with errors in a non-infallible Catechism, I have to agree that we deal with a huge scandal. Looks like the mystery of iniquity never slept.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 21, 2022, 08:37:52 PM
There's the Catechism of the Saint and Doctor of the Church Peter Canisius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Canisius) (Pieter Kanis of Nijmegen, Habsburg Netherlands). It comes in three editions: Catechismus maior, Catechismus minor, Catechismus minimus. The Catechismus maior is for educated people and was written on demand of King Ferdinand I, first published in Vienna, in 1555.

After the Council of Trent, it was updated. There were 55 runs within 10 years, in nine languages, and it was reprinted 200 times before St. Petrus Canisius died in 1597 (kathpedia.com (http://kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Petrus_Canisius:_Catechismus_maior)). St. Peter Canisius was one of the heroes of the Counter Reformation. His work was "translated into almost every language of Europe".

His Catechisms don't teach any sort of BoD or the like, at least not before the mid 1800s, when e.g. an edition, printed in  Bavaria, was extended to include a variant of BoD. Here's a German version of 1826 without any mention of BoD:kathpedia.com (http://kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Petrus_Canisius:_Catechismus_maior).

The Catechisms of St. Peter Canisius weren't written for priests only, and therefore well more commonly spread than the Roman Catechism.


Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: LeDeg on January 21, 2022, 09:27:19 PM
EENS is Catholic dogma.  It is not a "nothingburger".  Even if what you meant is that the debate about it is a "nothingburger", you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  You imply that EENS, a Catholic dogma, is detrimental to conversions and that instead of preaching that dogma we should be focused on Catholic apologetics.  Well, guess who is at the forefront of traditional Catholic apologetics and is getting large numbers of conversions?  Yeah, it is Most Holy Family Monastery (aka the Dimonds).  Most of their videos are Catholic apologetics videos.  They mostly focus on refuting the errors of the novus ordo, protestants and schismatics.  It seems like a week doesn't go by that they don't have someone writing to them to thank them for their work and to ask for help with getting baptized and/or converting to the traditional Catholic Church.  I have never seen anything like that at the chapels I have gone to (indult, SSPX, Resistance, CMRI).  One non-novus-ordo conversion in a year would be a big deal.  Dozens of conversions every year is almost incredible.  So regardless of whether you agree with their position on EENS, you should at least appreciate that they are getting many people to convert to the Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.
I have been saying just about everything you stated here for a long time. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: LeDeg on January 21, 2022, 09:27:48 PM
There's the Catechism of the Saint and Doctor of the Church Peter Canisius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Canisius) (Pieter Kanis of Nijmegen, Habsburg Netherlands). It comes in three editions: Catechismus maior, Catechismus minor, Catechismus minimus. The Catechismus maior is for educated people and was written on demand of King Ferdinand I, first published in Vienna, in 1555.

After the Council of Trent, it was updated. There were 55 runs within 10 years, in nine languages, and it was reprinted 200 times before St. Petrus Canisius died in 1597 (kathpedia.com (http://kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Petrus_Canisius:_Catechismus_maior)). St. Peter Canisius was one of the heroes of the Counter Reformation. His work was "translated into almost every language of Europe".

His Catechisms don't teach any sort of BoD or the like, at least not before the mid 1800s, when e.g. an edition, printed in  Bavaria, was extended to include a variant of BoD. Here's a German version of 1826 without any mention of BoD:kathpedia.com (http://kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Petrus_Canisius:_Catechismus_maior).

The Catechisms of St. Peter Canisius weren't written for priests only, and therefore well more commonly spread than the Roman Catechism.
Thank you for posting this.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: bodeens on January 21, 2022, 10:23:15 PM
EENS is Catholic dogma.  It is not a "nothingburger".  Even if what you meant is that the debate about it is a "nothingburger", you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  You imply that EENS, a Catholic dogma, is detrimental to conversions and that instead of preaching that dogma we should be focused on Catholic apologetics.  Well, guess who is at the forefront of traditional Catholic apologetics and is getting large numbers of conversions?  Yeah, it is Most Holy Family Monastery (aka the Dimonds).  Most of their videos are Catholic apologetics videos.  They mostly focus on refuting the errors of the novus ordo, protestants and schismatics.  It seems like a week doesn't go by that they don't have someone writing to them to thank them for their work and to ask for help with getting baptized and/or converting to the traditional Catholic Church.  I have never seen anything like that at the chapels I have gone to (indult, SSPX, Resistance, CMRI).  One non-novus-ordo conversion in a year would be a big deal.  Dozens of conversions every year is almost incredible.  So regardless of whether you agree with their position on EENS, you should at least appreciate that they are getting many people to convert to the Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.
I agree. All of these groups love to hate on the Dimonds but none of them put out content as quality as the Dimonds. Everyone, no matter their position agrees with you that they have the best Catholic content, period. People accuse them of all sorts of stuff but they are doing the most effective thing possible and converting souls via YouTube which is the most accessible platform to everyone. They might even be the best proselytizers for Christ right now, period. I don't think that's hyperbole either because they are entirely uncompromising. A lot of trad groups push stuff like Novus Ordo Watch, What Catholics Believe or other content creators but none of these people have a comprehensive view like the Dimonds or have the theological depth of their content. Also note how all of these other content creators calumniate and detract from the Dimonds. It's just silly to say no one cares about EENS or that it doesn't draw people into the faith.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: LeDeg on January 21, 2022, 10:37:36 PM
I agree. All of these groups love to hate on the Dimonds but none of them put out content as quality as the Dimonds. Everyone, no matter their position agrees with you that they have the best Catholic content, period. People accuse them of all sorts of stuff but they are doing the most effective thing possible and converting souls via YouTube which is the most accessible platform to everyone. They might even be the best proselytizers for Christ right now, period. I don't think that's hyperbole either because they are entirely uncompromising. A lot of trad groups push stuff like Novus Ordo Watch, What Catholics Believe or other content creators but none of these people have a comprehensive view like the Dimonds or have the theological depth of their content. Also note how all of these other content creators calumniate and detract from the Dimonds. It's just silly to say no one cares about EENS or that it doesn't draw people into the faith.
Couldn't agree more. While these alphabet soup trad groups are pandering to either the disaffected NO or arguing amongst themselves about who is right in responding to the crisis, the work the Dimonds have done on the Eastern Orthodox alone puts them miles ahead of these groups in responding to real theological issues that have come up in this day and age, such as the Essence/Energy dispute between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Many disaffected Catholics have gone to the EO and no trad groups have effectively tackled the issue other than the Dimonds. 

Their videos are very high quality, and powerful. Their defense against Protestants, for example, and  Justification and the use of Sacred Scripture is second to none. I have never seen any trad clergy today effectively use scripture as the Dimonds do. 

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: bodeens on January 21, 2022, 10:55:49 PM
Couldn't agree more. While these alphabet soup trad groups are pandering to either the disaffected NO or arguing amongst themselves about who is right in responding to the crisis, the work the Dimonds have done on the Eastern Orthodox alone puts them miles ahead of these groups in responding to real theological issues that have come up in this day and age, such as the Essence/Energy dispute between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Many disaffected Catholics have gone to the EO and no trad groups have effectively tackled the issue other than the Dimonds.

Their videos are very high quality, and powerful. Their defense against Protestants, for example, and  Justification and the use of Sacred Scripture is second to none. I have never seen any trad clergy today effectively use scripture as the Dimonds do.
Even clerically focused content like True Restoration or SSPX Crisis podcast is nowhere near as good as their content and does not put out a coherent view, which is absurd. Part of the issue I think too is that (especially with the SSPX) they will not address the spiritual aspect of current events. Videos like "America's Fall to Communism" directly address this in a way that SSPX or other groups simply aren't at a liberty to do, and it's because they are compromised and fear ridicule etc. Seeing COVID-19 in a vaccuum like Sanborn, SSPX etc see it is an obvious error and only the Dimonds (and the CMRI on this particular issue, if we're being fair "The Reign of Mary" goes hard on globalism regularly and does a great job on temporal issues and tying in the spiritual aspect) call it for what it is.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 22, 2022, 05:42:19 AM
I agree. All of these groups love to hate on the Dimonds but none of them put out content as quality as the Dimonds. Everyone, no matter their position agrees with you that they have the best Catholic content, period....
Certainly most of the content the DBs put out is undeniably excellent, but the problem is that 1% of poison.

 

Quote
It's just silly to say no one cares about EENS or that it doesn't draw people into the faith.
I did not understand Matthew to be saying that, all he is saying is that we waste our time arguing it in this fora, and our efforts would likely be more fruitful to do what the DBs have actually done - "writing Apologetics works, running an apologetics website/apostolate instead."

I agree with him but probably like most of us, I have no idea how to do that or the time to devote to it, it's much more convenient to just argue about it here. 

Far as that goes, I think the debating itself relates well to this snip from Who Shall Ascend?...

Quote
"...Among the discourses of Christ we find the following refrain: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mt. 11:15, 13:9, 43). Jesus was aware that in the crowds He addressed were some who would be saved. They would be saved because they would find faith in Him by the power of the Spirit, through Whom they would recognize the divine truth which He spoke.

 Moreover, again by the power of the Spirit within them, these would respond to the truth which they recognized with the assent of faith and the grasping of joyful love. Others who listened to Christ heard exactly the same words, but did not have the "ears with which to hear;" that is, they would not accept the grace to believe the truth which Christ expounded; for these latter, it had neither comprehensibleness nor urgency nor appeal. It might be better to say its meaning was both comprehended and its demand recognized. The reason Christ's words were not accepted by most of His hearers was that they were unwilling to submit to its demands..."

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 22, 2022, 06:58:31 AM

Ok, I am trying to see if I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that "Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism" is akin to saying "Since adults have another means of salvation besides baptism".

Is that accurate?

It's not "akin," but it is the very palpable and obvious implication. If the RC disavows BOD or at least does not allow it, the drafters did a horrible job of conveying the "truth" that only baptism is the means of salvation for everyone. This is a problem: if in fact the sacrament of baptism in water were absolutely necessary for all men under all circuмstances since the promulgation of the gospel, the Magisterium should have been fired for failing to forcefully and clearly affirm that in light of the BOD teachings that have dominated Catholic thought for centuries, a la St. Thomas, etc.

As a former strict Feeneyite, I now realize that is the thorn in the side of the Feeneyite position. And since - as addressed below - infallible councils like Florence (if not Trent as well with its references to desire) contain the same failures and allow the same palpable implications (see below), the infallible/non-infallible distinction - I would be rich based on payment for the number of times I myself invoked that distinction in the past - doesn't really hold.

It seems to me that there are two choices: allow for and accept that the non-infallible Magisterium is capable of teaching gross blunders regarding the faith which are, at the least, a "scandal" (quoting Marion, and that's his approach), or b) try to re-interpret language such as that which we are discussing so that they harmonize with, or don't contradict, some other teaching or viewpoint (such as your attempts with the RC).

I think Marion's approach is the only possible "remedy" (pun intended) - though as indicated above and discussed below, that approach has its problems if you want to hold to a no BOD position. Your way reminds me of attempts to interpret V2 as in line with Tradition, i.e., a whole bakery of a "hermeneutic of continuity." I reject your approach, and won't pretend that either intended or non-intended, but, again, palpable, implications - such as the implication that there is another remedy than baptism for salvation for adults in the RC - aren't there.

But then there's the larger problem (for Marion as well) is that the same implication is present in the Council of Florence:



Quote
Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…

Speaking of the Dimonds, they mention this passage in a discussion of BOD in the following article: Is Feeneyism Catholic?, By Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX)
(schismatic-home-aloner.com)

 (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/is-feeneyism-catholic-francois-laisney-sspx/#:~:text=Not only does Laisney again assert the blatant,complete lie! This type of dishonesty is mind-boggling.)They note that the "no other remedy" language in Florence is lifted from St. Thomas Aquinas, and they state, regarding Fr. Laisney's argument in favor of BOD:



Quote
He tries to bolster this position by pointing out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the docuмent quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.  The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.

I emphasize the italicized language (the bold is of the Dimonds in the original). And here we have the problem: while it's true the Council of Florence stopped the quotation before St. Thomas's teaching about another remedy for adults, it's quotation of the passage and invocation of its language invites the obvious implication of what follows in St. Thomas about another remedy for adults and, rather than saying something that would clarify and disabuse one of the associated notion that there is a remedy other than baptism for adults, it lets the association hang there - sort of like Vatican II speak, or a V2 "time bomb" in the text.

You can take your "hermeneutic of continuity" approach to the RC, Stubborn, but I find that less than satisfactory.

And if you look at the statement by Florence, a statement of the solemn Magisterium, that creates problems for me even with Marion's approach - if, in fact, you want to reject even a strict BOD on the basis of a distinction between infallible Magisterium and non-infallible, since Florence is infallible. 

 

PS - As should be clear, however, I do not reject a strict understanding of BOD.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 22, 2022, 07:06:19 AM
It looks to me like a lame try to spread one more peculiar and inconsistent sort of BoD. As if our poor Lord might possibly suffer from the hardship that a predestinated child might be snatched from what the Father has given to him, by pure accident, while He luckily was smart enough to frustrate this danger in the case of some adults.


They had a commission which was responsible for the RC. The infallible extraordinary Magisterium teaches that

I can't see how the ordinary and universal magisterium ever proposed the RC as "to be believed as divinely revealed". It was published to be used as a tool by parish priests.


Even given that I, in principle, can't see a problem with errors in a non-infallible Catechism, I have to agree that we deal with a huge scandal. Looks like the mystery of iniquity never slept.

Marion,

I appreciate your input, which has been very helpful. I address some of that input in my response to Stubborn.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 22, 2022, 09:10:34 AM

It's not "akin," but it is the very palpable and obvious implication. If the RC disavows BOD or at least does not allow it, the drafters did a horrible job of conveying the "truth" that only baptism is the means of salvation for everyone. This is a problem: if in fact the sacrament of baptism in water were absolutely necessary for all men under all circuмstances since the promulgation of the gospel, the Magisterium should have been fired for failing to forcefully and clearly affirm that in light of the BOD teachings that have dominated Catholic thought for centuries, a la St. Thomas, etc.
Ok, so you conclude there are other ways to hope to attain salvation and the sacrament of baptism is only one way.

Do you see the contradiction between your interpretation, and the Council of Trent's famous canon on "The Sacraments In General": "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous....let him be anathema."

To me, there is an obvious contradiction. As I see it, either your above quote is wrong, or Trent's quote is wrong.

It is funny because obviously we both see the same teaching, yet we understand it with a completely opposite understanding. Can we at least agree on this?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 22, 2022, 10:33:09 AM

Ok, so you conclude there are other ways to hope to attain salvation and the sacrament of baptism is only one way.

Do you see the contradiction between your interpretation, and the Council of Trent's famous canon on "The Sacraments In General": "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous....let him be anathema."

To me, there is an obvious contradiction. As I see it, either your above quote is wrong, or Trent's quote is wrong.

It is funny because obviously we both see the same teaching, yet we understand it with a completely opposite understanding. Can we at least agree on this?
 

No, we don't agree . . . not if Trent agrees with St. Thomas, and I see no reason to think not. 

St. Thomas on the "necessity" of the sacraments:


Quote
Article 1. Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?

Objection 1. It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 4:8): "Bodily exercise is profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (Question 60, Article 6). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.

Objection 2. Further, the Apostle was told (2 Corinthians 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.

Objection 3. Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Romans 5:10): "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.

I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1. Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.

Reply to Objection 2. God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Romans 6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."


Where in the above is a sine qua non necessity, as in it is impossible for justification and, at least hypothetically, salvation if one died in a state of justification without the sacrament? This necessity is compatible with the possibility of justification and salvation by BOD without contradiction - and so St. Thomas held both the necessity of the sacraments (as he explained above) and the possibility of BOD. 

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 22, 2022, 11:22:30 AM
I didn't  highlight the most pertinent section:


Quote
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Francis Xavier on January 22, 2022, 11:42:04 AM
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.

There are two important aspects regarding that: firstly, the saints you quoted lived before Vatican I, they didn't have the theological certainty we now have. In the case of St. Alphonsus, he was dead wrong, you know better than almost anyone else BoD is anything but de fide.

Secondly, as you pointed out elsewhere, it was primarily an academic question, not too much about the doctrinal purity, unlike in our time when some of them apply it even to the Jєωs.

Perhaps you don't want to make it a priority convincing the non-Pelagian BoDers for obvious reason, but to defend their right to hold it even when they know 1) The Church never infallibly teaches it 2) Council of Trent doesn't teach it 3) There are infallible teachings that oppose the BoD theory (eg., St. Siricius, OUM,...) would be to defend bad-will and obstinacy. Any error regarding the faith is very serious, whether it is notorious or not.

Surely you are not OK with the old-Catholics who cling to the Thomistic view on the Immaculate Conception because "it's not inherently harmful to the faith" and "does not intrinsically undermine" honour to Our Lady, as long as they do not regard her with indifference like the Protestants?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: In Principio on January 22, 2022, 11:49:13 AM
The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.
The preface you are referring to is Pope Clement XIII's encyclical, "In Dominico Agro"(https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm).  The encyclical is on the uniform instruction of the Catholic faith, and the excellency and usefulness of the Roman Catechism for that purpose.  It is a revitalization of the Roman Catechism, after a time when many other types of catechisms were being created by which "weak members of the faithful were scandalized at finding that they were no longer united by the same language and topics," and "contentions arose from different ways of transmitting Catholic truth and disunity of spirit and great disagreements from rivalry."  Pope Clement XIII encourages the bishops to order that everybody who has the care of souls should use the Roman Catechism "in instructing the faithful in the Catholic truth in order to preserve unity of learning, charity, and harmony of spirits."  To facilitate this,  Pope Clement XIII announces that they will be reprinting the Roman Catechism in Rome:

Quote
"To make the book more easily accessible and to correct the errors which have occurred in course of production, We have ensured that the copy published by Our predecessor St. Pius V in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent is reprinted in Rome with all care. The vernacular translation of it which was made and published by order of the same St. Pius will be reprinted very soon by Our order and will finally be published."

The bolded portion is the part you referenced.  It implies that there were some errors in some printings of the Roman Catechism, but not that these were necessarily theological or substantial errors; and not that all printings contained errors, or that the Roman Catechism itself contained errors.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 22, 2022, 01:44:50 PM
No, we don't agree . . . not if Trent agrees with St. Thomas, and I see no reason to think not.
In your quote, St. Thomas agrees with Trent two times, the second time he plainly states: "I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons....Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments."

I mean, he says it right there, he also said the same thing I said re Divine Providence (only he said it much better) in post #26.


Quote
Where in the above is a sine qua non necessity, as in it is impossible for justification and, at least hypothetically, salvation if one died in a state of justification without the sacrament? This necessity is compatible with the possibility of justification and salvation by BOD without contradiction - and so St. Thomas held both the necessity of the sacraments (as he explained above) and the possibility of BOD.
According to Trent, it is not possible to die in a state of justification without having first received the sacrament of baptism, Trent's teaching on Justification states that justification: "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration..."  So just by Trent saying this makes justification impossible without the sacrament of baptism. It's really not at all complicated.

So we have Trent and St. Thomas both teaching that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, which, just by Trent alone saying it, regardless of St. Thomas, means that salvation is impossible without the sacraments - and we all know that a BOD is not a sacrament. And we also have Trent teaching that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament of baptism. So in the scheme of justification and salvation, because it's not a sacrament, what good is a BOD?

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 22, 2022, 02:20:08 PM
Perhaps you don't want to make it a priority convincing the non-Pelagian BoDers for obvious reason, but to defend their right to hold it even when they know 1) The Church never infallibly teaches it 2) Council of Trent doesn't teach it 3) There are infallible teachings that oppose the BoD theory (eg., St. Siricius, OUM,...) would be to defend bad-will and obstinacy. Any error regarding the faith is very serious, whether it is notorious or not.

I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 22, 2022, 09:17:30 PM
I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.
I would agree with you that not everyone who believes in BOD is a heretic.  Fr Feeney believed in BOD and he believed that it would justify those who received it.  MHFM assert that Fr Feeney was not a heretic but that if he had heard the arguments as to why BOD is impossible, he would have changed his position.  I think Fr Feeney had an argument that could be reasonably held and even if he was in error, he wasn't denying any dogma whatsoever.  So even if he was wrong, and he refused correction from another theologian, he still wouldn't be a heretic.  He would just be in error.  I don't think MHFM would break communion with anyone who held Fr Feeney's position.  I don't know if they would break communion if that person refused correction from MHFM but I doubt they would.  They break communion with people who say that Jєωs and Muslims and pagans can be saved without conversion and baptism.  I don't think that is schismatic even though I don't think it is necessary either.  I think back to the case of Hypatius and Eulalius vs Nestorius.  Eulalius didn't break communion with Nestorius because he believed that although he knew Nestorius was a heretic, he should wait until Rome made a decision before breaking communion.  Hypatius broke communion immediately with Nestorius but did not break communion with Eulalius.  And when Rome made its decision on Nestorius, Hypatius was praised and he later was canonized.  Although Eulalius wasn't praised (and presumably he was even scolded) he was not excommunicated from the Church and Hypatius was in communion with him all along.  So what if Nestorius was the only means of access to the sacraments?  Also, are you really breaking communion with someone if you will receive sacraments from them but not instruction?  I don't know.  This crisis is so complicated that I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt.  And I'm not sure if I'm being as consistent as MHFM on the various issues.  On the one hand I cannot tolerate any idea that Bergoglio could possibly be the pope.  That to me is absolute insanity.  Idol-worshippers cannot be pope.  And I have broken communion with the Novus Ordo and even all of the R&R groups.  I would not go to a Mass where the priest believes Bergoglio is the pope.  I would just stay home and pray.  But the BOD issue, in my mind is different, and maybe this is where I'm not being consistent.  I see that the BOD traditionalists are just restating what was taught in approved Catholic manuals during a time when almost everyone agrees there was a legitimate pope (i.e. Pope Pius XII).  I think that deserves some leeway.  I can't expect those people to change their position just because I or MHFM show them how those manuals contradict Catholic dogma.  I think the only way they could be determined by me to be morally culpable is if a pope or an ordinary commanded them to change their position and they refused.  But I'm not going to call MHFM schismatic if they think they can make a determination of moral culpability.  These traditionalists are contradicting Catholic dogmas word-for-word.  Maybe MHFM is Hypatius and I'm Eulalius.  I'm not sure.  It would be better to be Hypatius.  Even small errors can have horrible consequences.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 22, 2022, 09:26:10 PM
Also, in my own defense, I have never heard any CMRI priest preach BOD from the pulpit.  And in fact, they have not only not expelled anti-BOD people (so-called Feeneyites), they even give them public Catholic funeral Masses.  Even MHFM will receive sacraments from BOD clergy.  They just refuse to be instructed by them.  But if they never say a word about BOD during the Mass, I don't see a problem with hearing the sermon.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 23, 2022, 05:01:24 AM
But then there's the larger problem (for Marion as well) is that the same implication is present in the Council of Florence:

Could you please restate "the larger problem" for me using a quote from the Council of Florence?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 23, 2022, 05:28:39 AM
It implies that there were some errors in some printings of the Roman Catechism, but not that these were necessarily theological or substantial errors;

Thanks for looking this up. Yes, Clement XIII gives no further detail about the errors he mentions.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 23, 2022, 09:05:19 AM
I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.
Weill said!
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 23, 2022, 12:02:18 PM

Could you please restate "the larger problem" for me using a quote from the Council of Florence?
Marion,

I'll try.

The RC basically gives expression to what the Council strongly implies: the possibility of another remedy beyond the sacrament for salvation. You essentially say that should be rejected in fear of going to hell, which I guess means you think that position heretical.

It's one thing for the RC to do that according to your view, since it's just a fallible statement of some committee, not infallible, and the solemn Magisterium is what you go by. This distinction - the RC being fallible - obviates any major theological problems as a result of its error (according to  your view).

Florence, however, is infallible, so if it is erroneous as expressing or supporting the same position as the RC . . . big problem.

Florence:


Quote
Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…

The RC:


Quote
Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

The Dimonds attempted to rebut Fr. Laisney's citation of the Council of Florence in defense of BOD by saying:


Quote
He tries to bolster this position by pointing out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the docuмent quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.  The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.

The RC basically verbalizes the part that Florence left silent ("stopped . . . quot[ing]"), by elaborating on the "other remedy" for adults:


Quote
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

And I summarized the problem for me in my post you responded to:


Quote
And here we have the problem: while it's true the Council of Florence stopped the quotation before St. Thomas's teaching about another remedy for adults, it's quotation of the passage and invocation of its language invites the obvious implication of what follows in St. Thomas about another remedy for adults and, rather than saying something that would clarify and disabuse one of the associated notion that there is a remedy other than baptism for adults, it lets the association hang there - sort of like Vatican II speak, or a V2 "time bomb" in the text.

I think Florence's language clearly implied what the RC made explicit. If that is heretical . . . it's a BIG PROBLEM.



Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 23, 2022, 12:30:36 PM
To snatch an elect child away from the dominion of the devil is not the same thing as to snatch away an elect child from the Lord. Also, different from the RC, the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence does not suggest an accident crossing the plans of the Lord. Furthermore, with children just like with adults, there is a difference between imminent danger of death and general danger of death. Some deferral is acceptable even in the case of children.

Quote
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм17.htm


To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me. But even if you want to read it this way, it still doesn't teach any sort of BoD. On the other hand, the Council of Trent teaches how justification works in the case of adults, and forbids to teach, preach, or believe anything else.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 23, 2022, 12:42:10 PM
To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me. But even if you want to read it this way, it still doesn't teach any sort of BoD. On the other hand, the Council of Trent teaches how justification works in the case of adults, and forbids to teach, preach, or believe anything else.
Yes, DR is stuck bad on giving words meanings which the words do not say. He at least readily admits to this, I don't know of any other BODer who does.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 23, 2022, 12:58:10 PM
To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me. 

Good point.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 23, 2022, 02:03:11 PM
Both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent neither taught what St. Thomas had speculated on BoD and BoB, nor explicitly condemned it. I think that's because the speculations of St. Thomas were neither based on revelation, nor on a common teaching of the Fathers. Neither divinely revealed, nor in a solid way based on tradition.

Both Councils weren't concerned with sorting out the ideas of Catholic theologians. They had other tasks. The Council of Trent implicity rejects BoD and BoB, by naming several necessary conditions for justification. These include the laver of generation, voto, preparation, faith, and more. The candidate asks the Church for the faith, and receives infused that sort of faith, hope, and charity, without which none can please the Lord.

Why didn't they explicitly condemn BoD and BoB? Why did they only strictly forbid to teach, preach, or believe anything else on justification? The Lord knows why. However, a replacement for the sacrament of baptism is neither divinely revealed, nor consistently found in tradition.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: augustineeens on January 23, 2022, 11:43:13 PM
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 24, 2022, 04:38:34 AM
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf
This type thing coming from a priest and a bishop, I would say is preaching heresy and I find it remarkable that they would go out of their way to preach it. smh
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 06:54:34 AM
This type thing coming from a priest and a bishop, I would say is preaching heresy and I find it remarkable that they would go out of their way to preach it. smh

Dr. Fastiggi, in his public debate with Bishop Sanborn, absolutely destroyed him on this point.  +Sanborn started out by denouncing the "ecclesiology" as the chief heresy of Vatican II.  But then later he stated that, of course this doesn't mean that non-Catholics can't be saved by Baptism of Desire.  Fastiggi correctly exploited this and won the debate.

If you say that non-Catholics can be saved, then because of the dogma "no salvation outside the Church", you MUST say that these non-Catholics can be in the Church, and thus you get Vatican II ecclesiology.  This cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling to me.

If you want to believe in a BoD, you need to limit it to Catechumens or at the very most Catechumen-like people who profess the Catholic faith before they die.  Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on in rejecting Vatican II.  As soon as you say that non-Catholics, i.e. heretics and infidels (Hindus in Tibet) can be saved by BoD, you're done, and to paraphrase Bishop Sanborn himself, you might as well just head to your nearest local Novus Ordo clown mass.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 06:59:48 AM
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf

Wow.  I just started reading this, and there are two heresies on the first page.  Believe in BoD if you feel compelled to do so, but please at least articulate your BoD in a non-heretical way.  :facepalm:  If I have time, I'm going to go through this.  It's absolutely horrible.  By his own criteria, Bishop Sanborn is a manifes heretic outside the Church.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 07:14:58 AM
+Sanborn --
Quote
5. Is baptism absolutely necessary? Baptism is not absolutely necessary ...


Catechism of St. Pius X
Quote
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

This is a heretical denial of Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism.

That's is why theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine, after Trent, refused to say that people could be saved without Baptism, but rather said that they received Baptism in voto.

Even if you believe in Baptism of Desire, you must maintain the absolute necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  You must articulate your belief in BoD in such a way that these are simply different MODES of RECEIVING the same Sacrament.

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 24, 2022, 07:31:23 AM
Even if you believe in Baptism of Desire, you must maintain the absolute necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  You must articulate your belief in BoD in such a way that these are simply different MODES of RECEIVING the same Sacrament.

And if you do so, you're condemned by another one of the canons of Trent for asserting baptism without water.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 24, 2022, 07:39:26 AM
Dr. Fastiggi, in his public debate with Bishop Sanborn, absolutely destroyed him on this point. 
I remember that debate, it was disappointing to see +Sanborn fail so miserably.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 07:42:14 AM
And if you do so, you're condemned by another one of the canons of Trent for asserting baptism without water.

I feel there's a bit of room for interpretation regarding that Canon, that would allow people to wiggle out of heresy, but I agree that the canon strongly militates against BoD.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 24, 2022, 07:42:34 AM

+Sanborn --

Catechism of St. Pius X
This is a heretical denial of Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism.

That's is why theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine, after Trent, refused to say that people could be saved without Baptism, but rather said that they received Baptism in voto.

Even if you believe in Baptism of Desire, you must maintain the absolute necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  You must articulate your belief in BoD in such a way that these are simply different MODES of RECEIVING the same Sacrament.

But look at Q. 17 in the Pius X Catechism. Here, I'll put them together:



Quote
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised


16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."


17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.



Now, honestly, the "absolute necess[ity] to salvation" of baptism can be "absent" and "supplied" by other things for what? 

This is just like the "no other remedy" or "no other means" language of the Council of Florence and the RC. It's obvious from the context what the substitutes "supply" for in the "absence" of what is "necessary to salvation:" they can supply for salvation. 

To argue that the word "salvation" doesn't appear in the answer to 17 is to resort to word games and pretense.

Evidently I'm the third wheel here. Sorry. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 24, 2022, 07:44:46 AM
I remember that debate, it was disappointing to see +Sanborn fail so miserably.

Yeah, he got drubbed. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 07:45:09 AM
+Sanborn:
Quote
9. How does the baptism of desire act? It acts ex opere operantis, that is, by virtue of the dispositions of the subject; and not ex opere operato, that is, by virtue of the work done: whence it follows that it can justify none but adults.

Pelagianism.  People save themselves.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 24, 2022, 07:49:52 AM
+Sanborn:
Pelagianism.  People save themselves.
That's right - which begs the question: If one can attain heaven by desiring the sacrament, then why can't one simply desire to ascend directly into heaven and attain salvation by that desire?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 24, 2022, 07:50:32 AM
+Sanborn:
Pelagianism.  People save themselves.

Yeah, I agree.

For cryin' out loud, I'm not advocating for BOD. God determines both the ends and the means, and applies them to His elect. If baptism is a divinely established  means, why wouldn't God bring the elect to the font? BOD makes no sense under a sovereign God who decides who, what, when and how.

But I'm not going to pretend that it's not there (the possibility of salvation by BOD) in Magisterial docuмents that confront us. I didn't write them; yet it's incuмbent on me to honestly read them.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 07:51:54 AM

But look at Q. 17 in the Pius X Catechism. Here, I'll put them together:


Now, honestly, the "absolute necess[ity] to salvation" of baptism can be "absent" and "supplied" by other things for what?

This is just like the "no other remedy" or "no other means" language of the Council of Florence and the RC. It's obvious from the context what the substitutes "supply" for in the "absence" of what is "necessary to salvation:" they can supply for salvation.

To argue that the word "salvation" doesn't appear in the answer to 17 is to resort to word games and pretense.

Evidently I'm the third wheel here. Sorry.


Either this is a massive contradicition (due to the fact that this Catechism has been edited multiple times), or BoD/BoB can supply for some effects of Baptism that fall short of salvation (aka Father Feeney's position).  St. Ambrose made a distinction between "washing" (possible through BoB, and he hoped also by BoD for Valentinian) and "crowning" (which is not possible even for BoB).  I started an entire thread where the Church Fathers distinguish between entering the Kingdom (beatific vision) and a washing of the guilt due to sin.  This is what makes the quote from St. Simplicius make sense.

BTW, St. Simplicius' teaching is closest to a dogmatic rejection of BoD that can be found anywhere, and I can find no way that a BoDer can wiggle out of this quotation.

Also, one of the dogmatic EENS definitions states that there's no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful".  Msgr. Fenton explains that the "faithful" is a technical term that positively excludes Catechumens.  He wiggles out of that one with his "undigested hamburger" soteriology, where someone can be IN the body without actually being PART OF the body.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 07:56:31 AM

For cryin' out loud, I'm not advocating for BOD. God determines both the ends and the means, and applies them to His elect. If baptism is a divinely established  means, why wouldn't God bring the elect to the font?


This entire presmise of BoD is that somehow God is bound by impossibility (heretical).  It is no more difficult for God to bring the Sacrament to someone as to inspire a votum for the Sacrament.  St. Augustine explicitly rejected this opinion for those "who wish to be Catholic" in his famous "vortex of confusion" quote.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 24, 2022, 07:59:01 AM
Either this is a massive contradicition (due to the fact that this Catechism has been edited multiple times), or BoD/BoB can supply for some effects of Baptism that fall short of salvation (aka Father Feeney's position).  St. Ambrose made a distinction between "washing" (possible through BoB, and he hoped also by BoD for Valentinian) and "crowning" (which is not possible even for BoB).  I started an entire thread where the Church Fathers distinguish between entering the Kingdom (beatific vision) and a washing of the guilt due to sin.  This is what makes the quote from St. Simplicius make sense.

BTW, St. Simplicius' teaching is closest to a dogmatic rejection of BoD that can be found anywhere, and I can find no way that a BoDer can wiggle out of this quotation.

Also, one of the dogmatic EENS definitions states that there's no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful".  Msgr. Fenton explains that the "faithful" is a technical term that positively excludes Catechumens.  He wiggles out of that one with his "undigested hamburger" soteriology, where someone can be IN the body without actually being PART OF the body.

I say it appears to be a massive contradiction. One can only hope it was sabotaged by some revisers. 

As to option 2, the Father Feeney solution, I must insist, again, that the context and the language of the two sections are so awfully written that I wouldn't trust the thing (the Catechism) for anything if it blundered so bad as to suggest, quite palpably, that BOB and BOD can supply for salvation in the absence of the sacrament. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 24, 2022, 07:59:57 AM
This entire presmise of BoD is that somehow God is bound by impossibility (heretical).  It is no more difficult for God to bring the Sacrament to someone as to inspire a votum for the Sacrament.  St. Augustine explicitly rejected this opinion for those "who wish to be Catholic" in his famous "vortex of confusion" quote.

Absolutely agree. 

Too bad we didn't write the catechisms. 
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 24, 2022, 08:00:45 AM
This entire presmise of BoD is that somehow God is bound by impossibility (heretical).  It is no more difficult for God to bring the Sacrament to someone as to inspire a votum for the Sacrament.  St. Augustine explicitly rejected this opinion for those "who wish to be Catholic" in his famous "vortex of confusion" quote.
That's right, and it is because God is bound by impossibility that He (His Providence) is taken out of the formula for a BOD altogether. That's the only way a BOD works, when God is taken out of the formula. The whole act of a BOD is based on faith alone - condemned at Trent in one of the most popular canons BODers like to site. Amazing stuff.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2022, 08:43:15 AM
But we know that the point of BoD for most BoDers isn't about a case of "impossibility".

Their real intent is to use BoD to get non-Catholics saved.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 24, 2022, 03:45:31 PM
This entire presmise of BoD is that somehow God is bound by impossibility (heretical).  It is no more difficult for God to bring the Sacrament to someone as to inspire a votum for the Sacrament.  St. Augustine explicitly rejected this opinion for those "who wish to be Catholic" in his famous "vortex of confusion" quote.
I think the premise was different for different people.  Assuming St Ambrose was implying BOD (I know it is not certain), his motivation surely was to prevent his catechumens from becoming discouraged.  I would think St Augustine was either of the same mind as Ambrose or he didn't want to contradict Ambrose.  But later he reversed his position.  St Thomas maybe didn't want to contradict Augustine.  Or maybe BOD was already gaining traction at that time and St Thomas didn't see any reason to oppose it given that Augustine supported it.  But clearly none of them believed that non-Catholics could be saved.  St Thomas at least taught that God would miraculously instruct those who were ignorant of the necessary articles of faith.  Francis Sullivan in his EENS book wrote that it wasn't until the discovery of the new world that the Jesuits gradually started developing the idea that non-Catholics could be saved.  He asserted that it was because theologians were concerned that God would be seen as cold and cruel if people who had no opportunity to be evangelized were cast into hell.  This idea of noble savages is odd.  It seems diabolical to me.  It certainly isn't intuitive.  And if you knew about the Church's teaching on original sin, why would you think that unevangelized people who are sunk in the depths of the most disgusting and unnatural vices would be worthy of being saved?  The North American Blackrobe martyrs didn't find anyone who wasn't mired in some kind of vice.  That many of them became very holy after conversion doesn't imply that they were good before conversion.  It wasn't until the 19th century that BOD started being used as an instrument to save Jєωs and Muslims who explicitly reject the Catholic faith.  The motive for that was certainly the destruction of the Catholic Church.  But that is exactly what most Catholic seminaries were teaching by the 20th century.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Stubborn on January 25, 2022, 05:43:45 AM
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf
Foot note below is quoted verbatim from the above link from two who are wont to pass themselves off as "theologians" of this century. I post it because it amazes me what both of these educated shepherds of the Church, of all people did, that so effectively changes Trent's meaning into the exact opposite of what it actually says.

Quote
[7] In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as
being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the
first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of sons”
[Romans VIII:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our
Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel
cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a
desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John III:5]. [emphasis added]

They say that justification cannot be effected *except through*, but the Latin: "sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest" means that "it is not possible", or simply "without," which means Trent is actually teaching that justification "cannot possibly be effected without the sacrament or a desire for it, as it is written..."

For such educated shepherds, why on earth wouldn't they say to themselves - "hmmm, I wonder why Trent quotes John 3:5 at the end?" since it is altogether out of place and makes no sense whatsoever in the context of any BOD or their teaching, while at the same time it serves to prove and confirm Trent's teaching the absolute necessity of the sacrament.

Anyone?
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 25, 2022, 05:10:52 PM

 And if you knew about the Church's teaching on original sin, why would you think that unevangelized people who are sunk in the depths of the most disgusting and unnatural vices would be worthy of being saved?  


Why indeed. And why would a saint who knows that God has established baptism as the means for entrance into the Kingdom of His Son in the New Covenant, and who also knows this:



Quote
Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matthew 20:14-15).



SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Predestination (Prima Pars, Q. 23) (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article5)
(https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article5)

Also say that God has chosen to save some in the New Covenant without the sacrament that He has taken such great pains to establish and decree as the means of salvation? 

Why indeed. 

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Marion on January 25, 2022, 06:50:22 PM
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf

Quote from: Dei filius
Porro fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur, et ab Ecclesia sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.
vatican.va (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/docuмents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24-aprilis-1870.html)

Quote from: Dei filius
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 or tradition, and proposed by the church, whether by solemn judgment or the ordinary and universal magisterium as matters to be believed as divinely revealed.

In the pamphlet, linked by augistineeens, Cekada twists the infallible teaching of the Vatican Council. Cekada quotes the above teaching of the Vatican Council, and at the same time misrepresents it, adding disruptive emphasis and adding a punctuation mark, to twist the meaning (see Section I, I., A.). He then explicitly confirms his intention to eliminate an important condition by restating the teaching in his own words, omitting the condition (see Section I, I., C.).

The condition is "to be believed as divinely revealed". The Council is not speaking about everything which is proposed to be believed, but about those things which are proposed to be believed as divinely revealed.

So much for the first misrepresentation of infallible truth solemnly proposed by the extraordinary magisterium of the Church of the Lord.

Cekada goes ahead, twisting the words of Pope Pius IX (see Section I, II.):

Quote from: Cĭcāda
II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith

(Pius IX).
• “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pon-
tiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those
matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordi-
nary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the
world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held
by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
” Tuas Libenter (1863),
DZ 1683.

Pope Pius IX says "matters which are handed down as divinely revealed, and therefore ... held ... by Catholic theologians as de fide." Cekada, in the heading, swaps cause and effect, and claims that we must believe, not what in fact was handed down as divinely revealed, not what in fact was handed down by the magisterium as divinely revealed, but what theologians hold to belong to the faith.


Then, Cekada goes ahead teaching all sorts of ideas selected from his linear meters of manuals, completely ignoring the magisterium. He starts his Section II with the heading:

Quote from: Cĭcāda
Why the Church Requires You
to Believe or Adhere to Doctrines
Commonly Taught by her Theologians.

[...]

I. Introductory Concepts.

A. Definition of Theologian = “learned man who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church.”


Science replaces the magisterium, Cĭcāda cantat (the locust chirps).

Forget the magisterium, Cĭcāda presents scientific proof, why it's safe to do so:

Quote from: Locust
IV. Thesis: The unanimous teaching of theologians in matters
of faith and morals establishes certitude for the proof of a dogma.



May the Lord have mercy on this scorpion.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 25, 2022, 08:05:31 PM
I think the premise was different for different people.  Assuming St Ambrose was implying BOD (I know it is not certain), his motivation surely was to prevent his catechumens from becoming discouraged. 

St. Augustine explained why the necessity of Baptism was causing issues for some people.  He mentioned that people regularly saw scoundrels who delayed their Baptism until death (often so they could continue with their immoral lives) be snatched from Hell at the last moment and then occasionally some devout Catechumens who had reformed their lives dying before receiving the Sacrament.

But having given it more thought, in the "vortex of confusion" passage, he rejected that consideration for all who "wished to be Catholic".

It's clear that the subsequent proponents of BoD were almost entirely deferring to St. Augustine's admittedly tentative and speculative opinion.  When he came out with his theory, he admitted that he went back and forth on the question but at the time he "finds that" (i.e. personal opinion rather than communicating teaching from Apostolic authority).

5-6 Church Fathers rejected the speculation.

Consequently, I see zero evidence that speculation regarding BoD was revealed and taught by the Apostles.  If anything the Church Fathers are consistent regarding the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  There's that famous passage from the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  As a graduate student I read hundreds of pages from the Fathers in the original languages, and I concur with Father Jurgens' assessment:
Quote
If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.

I had come to this conclusion long before I had heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimond Brothers.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 26, 2022, 06:11:22 AM

St. Augustine explained why the necessity of Baptism was causing issues for some people.  He mentioned that people regularly saw scoundrels who delayed their Baptism until death (often so they could continue with their immoral lives) be snatched from Hell at the last moment and then occasionally some devout Catechumens who had reformed their lives dying before receiving the Sacrament.

But having given it more thought, in the "vortex of confusion" passage, he rejected that consideration for all who "wished to be Catholic".

It's clear that the subsequent proponents of BoD were almost entirely deferring to St. Augustine's admittedly tentative and speculative opinion.  When he came out with his theory, he admitted that he went back and forth on the question but at the time he "finds that" (i.e. personal opinion rather than communicating teaching from Apostolic authority).

5-6 Church Fathers rejected the speculation.

Consequently, I see zero evidence that speculation regarding BoD was revealed and taught by the Apostles.  If anything the Church Fathers are consistent regarding the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  There's that famous passage from the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  As a graduate student I read hundreds of pages from the Fathers in the original languages, and I concur with Father Jurgens' assessment:
I had come to this conclusion long before I had heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimond Brothers.

Excellent. 

For ease of reference, I quote the St. Augustine passage:



Quote
Chapter 13 [X]—His Seventh Error. (See Above in Book II. 13 [IX.].)

If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that “they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.” There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org) (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvii.vi.xiii.html)


 (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvii.vi.xiii.html)Directly and forcefully showing the relation of predestination and the significance of that doctrine, and its link with this issue. I'm post this quote in my predestination thread. And again reiterate my speculation and theory that it is the loss of a firm sense of the truth of this doctrine and its implications which is foundational to the development of BOD. 

I'll also repost my quote of St. Thomas earlier in this thread so the link can be clear:


Quote
Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matthew 20:14-15).



SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Predestination (Prima Pars, Q. 23) (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article5)
(https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article5)
If only the later St. Augustine could have discussed this with St. Thomas in reference to St. Thomas's expressions on behalf of BOD. Would love to hear a debate on that between those two . . . if St. Thomas didn't retract after discussing it with St. Augustine before it. 





Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 26, 2022, 07:53:31 AM
This here from your citation has been my attitude regarding predestination:

Quote
Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err."

I believe that this kindof speculation is a mystery far above our understanding, and so I don't spend a great deal of time on the question.  But I'll go have a look at your predestination thread.  Regardless, I absolutely rejection this notion that God can be impeded by impossibility, accidents, and surprises.  He has no more difficulty bringing the Sacraments to His elect than He has drawing them by internal inspiration.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: DecemRationis on January 26, 2022, 08:47:02 AM

This here from your citation has been my attitude regarding predestination:

I believe that this kindof speculation is a mystery far above our understanding, and so I don't spend a great deal of time on the question.  But I'll go have a look at your predestination thread.  Regardless, I absolutely rejection this notion that God can be impeded by impossibility, accidents, and surprises.  He has no more difficulty bringing the Sacraments to His elect than He has drawing them by internal inspiration.

Lad,

Yes, there is mystery as to "why" God chooses one over another: the reason for the choice is shrouded in mystery in the will of God. But there is no mystery that He chooses not in reaction to something in the men chosen: the good in them comes from Him, and is freely given to one rather than another for reasons only known to Himself.

But, while both St. Thomas and St. Augustine maintained that that was a mystery, they were also quite clear that the choice has nothing to do with merits in the individual men - if that were the case, the "mystery" would be gone. It is a mystery because it can't be explained by differentia existing in the men involved, which would not be "mysterious": God chose A because he was "better" than the other, made the right choices, believed and the other didn't. That would not be mysterious. And we know based on Scripture that God gave the elect their saving faith and God gave them final perseverance (apart from their own merits or their "better" judgment or choice; the distinction is not there, in the men; the difference is in God's choice to give one rather than the other). This is how both St. Augustine and St. Thomas understood this passage of Scripture:


Quote
1 Corinthians 4:7

[7] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=4&l=7-#x) For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Quis enim te discernit? quid autem habes quod non accepisti? si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis?

http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/53004.htm 


That the elect are predestined by God based solely upon his gratuitous choice which has nothing to do with one man being better than another is clear in Scripture and in the teaching of St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Look at the quote from St. Thomas in the Summa which I quoted above in this thread. And here's St. Augustine on the truth that is revealed in Scripture about Predestination:



Quote
Chapter 21 - Instances of the Unsearchable Judgments of God.


Therefore, of two infants, equally bound by original sin, why the one is taken and the other left; and of two wicked men of already mature years, why this one should be so called as to follow Him that calleth, while that one is either not called at all, or is not called in such a manner,—the judgments of God are unsearchable. But of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. Yet to believers it ought to be a most certain fact that the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. “For if they had been of us,” says one of the predestinated, who had drunk this secret from the breast of the Lord, “certainly they would have continued with us.”( 1 John ii. 19 . ) What, I ask, is the meaning of, “They were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us”? Were not both created by God—both born of Adam—both made from the earth, and given from Him who said, “I have created all breath,”( Isa. lvii. 16 [see LXX.] ) souls of one and the same nature? Lastly, had not both been called, and followed Him that called them? and had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration? But if he were to hear this who beyond all doubt knew what he was saying, he might answer and say: These things are true. In respect of all these things, they were of us. Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction? God’s books lie open, let us not turn away our view; the divine Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them, because they had not been “called according to the purpose;” they had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued with them.


Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (pp. 9456-9457). Kindle Edition.


Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Joe Cupertino on January 26, 2022, 02:30:52 PM

Consequently, I see zero evidence that speculation regarding BoD was revealed and taught by the Apostles.  If anything the Church Fathers are consistent regarding the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  There's that famous passage from the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  As a graduate student I read hundreds of pages from the Fathers in the original languages, and I concur with Father Jurgens' assessment:
Quote
If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.
I had come to this conclusion long before I had heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimond Brothers.

The Dimonds cut off the first and last sentence of the paragraph.

That passage of Jurgens is from his footnote discussing the state of infants who die without Baptism, as he says in the first sentence, removed by the Dimonds.  

The "tradition" that Jurgens says "in fact is there" refers to the "obvious exception of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility."  Jurgens is saying BOD is the tradition that "in fact is there,", and "likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation."  If that wasn't clear, any confusion is cleared up by the last sentence of the paragraph, which the Dimonds also removed.  

Here's the full paragraph (bolded sentences are the two the Dimonds removed): 


Quote
"31.  The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology.  If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of “unless a man be born again et reliqua” is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.  The Church always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen."

Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 3, pg. 14-15

Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Last Tradhican on January 26, 2022, 02:36:58 PM
I had come to this conclusion long before I had heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimond Brothers.


The Dimonds cut off the first and last sentence of the paragraph.

That passage of Jurgens is from his footnote discussing the state of infants who die without Baptism, as he says in the first sentence, removed by the Dimonds. 

The "tradition" that Jurgens says "in fact is there" refers to the "obvious exception of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility."  Jurgens is saying BOD is the tradition that "in fact is there,", and "likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation."  If that wasn't clear, any confusion is cleared up by the last sentence of the paragraph, which the Dimonds also removed. 

Here's the full paragraph (bolded sentences are the two the Dimonds removed):
Jurgens is a modernist, instrumental in the Novus Ordo mass, I would not quote him for anything, whether he agrees with me or not. In this case there is no mention of his quotes to show that "BOD is the tradition that in fact is there, and likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation". Moreover, the dogmas on EENS are all very clearly against the idea that a non-Catholic can be saved. The dogmas clearly state that one must be a baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved. It is that simple.

To say today the complete opposite: That a not baptized person that is not in a state of grace can miraculously baptize himself by an implicit desire of some kind and rid himself of his sins by some implicit desire or belief (Implicit faith in a god of some kind that rewards), is nothing short of ludicrous.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Joe Cupertino on January 26, 2022, 02:57:30 PM
I agree, Jurgens was a modernist, and shouldn't be used as an authority.  That makes it all the more odd that the Dimonds would quote him as one.  Jurgens actually goes on in the next two paragraphs of that footnote to call Limbo "generous but questionable", and then he applies BOD to infants, with "a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself."  Whatever one may think of BOD, it was always denied to infants in traditional teachings, barring some rare source.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Ladislaus on January 26, 2022, 03:12:48 PM
Modernist or not, he knew the Church Fathers ... as did Rahner.  And their citations are even more compelling because they’d love nothing more than to find evidence for their loose soteriology in the Fathers.  But unlike the vast majority of BoDers these Modernists are at least intellectually honest.  They don’t care if they’re consistent with the Fathers because for them doctrine can change over time.

Ranger and Jurgens are both absolutely correct about the thinking of the Church Fathers.  I think that their quotes are in fact that much more powerful precisely BECAUSE they are Modernists.
Title: Re: Priests who believe EENS
Post by: Joe Cupertino on January 26, 2022, 03:32:45 PM
Modernists like Rahner and Jurgens would have also loved nothing more than disseminating the idea that the Church had long admitted to contradictory teachings and substantial changes in doctrine, thereby paving the way for more.  I wouldn’t trust anything they said about Church teachings or history.