Author Topic: Priests who believe EENS (Read 8546 times)

Francis Xavier · « **Reply #45 on:** January 21, 2022, 04:09:30 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on January 21, 2022, 03:32:06 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** January 21, 2022, 04:28:11 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 03:02:19 PM

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #47 on:** January 21, 2022, 04:41:35 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 20, 2022, 04:04:17 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.

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").

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** January 21, 2022, 05:02:17 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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!"

Ladislaus · « **Reply #49 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”.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #50 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.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #51 on:** January 21, 2022, 06:08:59 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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

DecemRationis · « **Reply #52 on:** January 21, 2022, 06:11:11 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 21, 2022, 04:28:11 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

DecemRationis · « **Reply #53 on:** January 21, 2022, 06:23:30 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 20, 2022, 07:06:11 PM

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #54 on:** January 21, 2022, 07:15:11 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 21, 2022, 06:23:30 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #55 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".

DecemRationis · « **Reply #56 on:** January 21, 2022, 08:02:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 21, 2022, 07:15:11 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #57 on:** January 21, 2022, 09:20:59 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 21, 2022, 08:02:49 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?

Sefa · « **Reply #58 on:** January 21, 2022, 10:36:16 AM »

Quote from: Francis Xavier on January 21, 2022, 03:42:00 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #59 on:** January 21, 2022, 11:07:37 AM »

Quote from: Sefa on January 21, 2022, 10:36:16 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.

Author Topic: Priests who believe EENS (Read 8546 times)

Francis Xavier

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Stubborn

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Stubborn

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Stubborn

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Ladislaus

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Ladislaus

Re: Priests who believe EENS

DecemRationis

Re: Priests who believe EENS

DecemRationis

Re: Priests who believe EENS

DecemRationis

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Ladislaus

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Ladislaus

Re: Priests who believe EENS

DecemRationis

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Stubborn

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Sefa

Re: Priests who believe EENS

Stubborn

Re: Priests who believe EENS