Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:01:45 AM

Title: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:01:45 AM
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:02:48 AM
[font=&quot,serif]At least he was honest. I think that is the reason all BODers are so thickheaded, there is scarcely one that limits it to baptism of desire of the catechumen. And the reason why they think that way I believe is:
 
 #1 they think that Hell is an amorphous solid mass of horrific punishments
 #2 they think that people are just born into a situation and God has to deal with them then.
 #3 they think that clear dogma has to be interpreted by theologians
 [/font]
[/size]
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:10:16 AM
#1 they think that Hell is an amorphous solid mass of horrific punishments



Hell is not an amorphous solid mass of equal hell fire suffering for all, it has innumerable degrees of punishments,  Limbo of the infants is in Hell, and it is a type of natural paradise (Limbo of the Prophets was in Hell). A Caribbean island with crystal clear waters and cool breezes is a paradise, BUT, you also have hot sun, humidity, rains, mosquito's, rats, have to find food every day...…..

The worst and deepest pits of hell are reserved for Judas and Catholics after him:

From Mystical City of God , by Sister Mary of Agreda.

537. Seeing him (Judas) thus beside himself Lucifer inspired him with the thought of hunting up the priests, returning to them the money and confessing his sin. This Judas hastened to do, and he loudly shouted at them those words: "I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!" (Mat. 27, 4). But they, not less hardened, answered that he should have seen to that before. The intention of the demon was to hinder the death of Christ if possible, for reasons already given and yet to be given (No. 419). This repulse of the priests, so full of impious cruelty, took away all hope from Judas and he persuaded himself that it was impossible to hinder the death of his Master. So thought also the demon, although later on he made more efforts to forestall it through Pilate. But as Judas could be of no more use to him for his purpose, he augmented his distress and despair, persuading him that in order to avoid severer punishments he must end his life. Judas yielded to this terrible deceit, and rushing forth from the city, hung himself on a dried-out fig tree (Mat. 27, 5). Thus he that was the murderer of his Creator, became also his own murderer. This happened on Friday at twelve o'clock, three hours before our Savior died. It was not becoming that his death and the consummation of our Redemption should coincide too closely with the execrable end of the traitorous disciple, who hated him with fiercest malice.

538. The demons at once took possession of the soul of Judas and brought it down to hell. His entrails burst from the body hanging upon the tree (Acts 1, 18). All that saw this stupendous pimishment of the perfidious and malicious disciple for his treason, were filled with astonishment and dread. The body remained hanging by the neck for three days, exposed to the view of the public. During that time the Jews attempted to take it down f rom the tree and to bury it in secret, for it was a sight apt to cause great confusion to the pharisees and priests, who could not refute such a testimony of his wickedness. But no efforts of theirs sufficed to drag or separate the body from its position on the tree until three days had passed, when, according to the dispensation of divine justice, the demons themselves snatched the body from the tree and brought it to his soul, in order that both might suffer eternal punishment in the profoundest abyss of hell. Since what I have been made to know of the pains and chastisements of Judas, is worthy of fear-inspiring attention, I will according to command reveal what has been shown me concerning it. Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.

539. This mystery I was commanded to reveal more particularly for a dreadful warning to all Christians, and especially to the priests, prelates and religious, who are accustomed to treat with more familiarity the body and blood of Christ our Lord, and who, by their office and state are his closer friends. In order to avoid blame I would like to find words and expressions sufficiently strong to make an impression on our unfeeling obduracy, so that we all may take a salutary warning and be filled with the fear of the punishments awaiting all bad Christians according to the station each one of us occupies. The demons torment Judas with inexpressible cruelty, because he persisted in the betrayal of his Master, by whose Passion and Death they were vanquished and despoiled of the possession of the world. The wrath which they had conceived against the Savior and his blessed Mother, they wreck, as far as is allowed them, on all those who imitate the traitorous disciple and who follow him in his contempt of the evangelical law, of the Sacraments and of the fruits of the Redemption. And in this the demons are but executing just punishment on those members of the mystical body of Christ, who have severed their connection with its head Christ, and who have voluntarily drifted away and delivered themselves over to the accursed hate and implacable fury of his enemies. As the instruments of divine justice they chastise the redeemed for their ingratitude toward their Redeemer. Let the children of the Church consider well this truth, for it cannot fail to move their hearts and induce them to evade such a lamentable fate.



 






Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:16:41 AM
#2 they think that people are just born into a situation and God has to deal with them then.

People are not born into a place and time by chance then God has to deal with them how best he can. They are put in exactly the time (B.C. to A.D., any century) and place that God has chosen for them from the beginning of time. It is the best time for them, chosen by God Himself who is perfectly merciful and just.


Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]

 

 In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.

 

 

T

Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:31:43 AM

#3 they think that clear dogma has to be interpreted by theologians

99% of those who say they believe in baptism of desire, actually believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed any non-Catholic can be saved, Fr. Cekada states as such above, yet that is totally opposed to clear Catholic dogmas on EENS, I won't quote them all here (for now) except for one, The dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which states that to be saved, one must believe in the Incarnation (the Jesus Christ is God) and the Holy Trinity. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, both taught baptism of desire of the catechumen, and are always quoted by BODers as their authority against the dogmas on EENS, following the Athanasian Creed both taught that baptism of desire required at a minimum, belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, yet  99% of those who say they believe in baptism of desire, actually believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed any non-Catholic can be saved without any belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, or desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic. Indeed, they even despise anything remotely Catholic.


Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:34:25 AM
Sorry for the large lettering, I was not able to correct those postings in time.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 08, 2019, 02:40:16 AM

Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how in reality they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy!
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
 “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches
that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [/color](pagans and Jews can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)[/size]
 
 
 Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [/size]nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
 “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation
nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
 
 Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
 “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
 “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all
to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
 “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which
no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
 
 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true
Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which
no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which
none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
 
 Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And
this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, 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 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 Chapter VII.
 
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
 This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439,
ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
 On Baptism
 
 Canon 2.
If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Canon 5. If any one saith, that
baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
 way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
 Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who
 have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
 consequently are not members of Christ
 orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
 have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
 
 
 (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: roscoe on August 08, 2019, 02:49:35 AM
There is  NO SUCH THING as a 'Sede'... :cheers:
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Struthio on August 08, 2019, 06:08:06 AM
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Cekada refuses to believe in infallible Catholic dogma and prefers his own fallible insights. How is that different from the Conciliar Antipopes, he rejects? What's his problem with the Conciliar Costume Club, where they all do exactly the same?

Probably, he shares the reason he gives for his rejection of Catholic dogma with most of the other impostors, who call themselves Catholics but reject infallibly defined dogma of the Church of Our Lord.

Beware of costume clubs appropriating church vestments and rites.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 07:28:30 AM
I believe Florence is ultimately referring to the formal heretic, and saying that even if he shed his blood for Christ, he'd still be damned.  Someone like a John Calvin, or a James White who's spent his life opposing the true Church of Jesus Christ, would be damned even if he went to the Muhammadeans with his false version of Christianity, and died for it.  I don't think Florence is ruling out the possibility that you could have a confused man who visibly identifies as Protestant, who's actually of good faith and is actually Catholic.  

Augustine, for instance, says this in Letter 43 to the Donatists

//[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]1. The[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Apostle Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]has said:[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]A man that is an heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) after the first and second admonition reject, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that he that is such is subverted and sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), being condemned of himself.[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Titus 3:10-11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit003.htm#verse10)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]who had been misguided and had fallen into[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], and if they are with anxiety seeking the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. Were it not that I[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]resistance to[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]which the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle:[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The Lord make you to increase and abound in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one toward another, and toward all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm).[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1th003.htm#verse12)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness,[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), who are taken captive by him at his will.[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]2 Timothy 2:25-26 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#verse25)
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm); though I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) in my vindication at the bar of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who knows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Matthew 5:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse9)[/color]
//

While I realize Augustine isn't speaking dogmatically here, I don't see any evidence that the framework he presents here is heretical.

I admit I'm less sure on the whole "God that rewards" thing.  I'm not convinced that some type of framework where that's *possible* necessarily contradicts the dogmas, but even if it doesn't, that doesn't mean that ever actually happens.  I mean, I'm not convinced God has completely closed that door, but I'm very, very skeptical.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Struthio on August 08, 2019, 07:36:44 AM
Did you mean to post the following?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm


Chapter 1
1. The Apostle Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) has said: A man that is an heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) after the first and second admonition reject, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that he that is such is subverted and sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit003.htm#verse10) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) resistance to truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm), not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm). These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) which the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one toward another, and toward all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1th003.htm#verse12) In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#verse25)
2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm); though I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) in my vindication at the bar of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who knows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Matthew 5:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse9)
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 08:24:34 AM
Quote
I don't think Florence is ruling out the possibility that you could have a confused man who visibly identifies as Protestant, who's actually of good faith and is actually Catholic.  
You cannot be a protestant and a catholic at the same time.  Either you believe that Christ gives us His body and blood in the Eucharist, which is necessary for salvation, or you do not.  Either you believe that you must submit to the Church and the pope to be saved, or you do not.  Either you believe that Our Lady was born spotless from sin, and remained so for Her entire life, and was Assumed into Heaven as Queen, or you do not.
.
A confused protestant may not be guilty of heresy (for a time) but they are not a catholic, since they identify with heresy.  Confusion, like ignorance, is a punishment for sin.  If that person has good will and strives for natural goodness, God will remove his confusion and send him the truths of the Faith.  I say that the protestant is not guilty "for a time" because if he stays in his confusion and does not seek truth, he is guilty of spiritual sloth and God will not bless him with the truths which he lazily did not seek.  We cannot say, per Church doctrine, that a confused protestant can be saved.  We can only say that this person, IF HE BECOMES A CATHOLIC, and rejects his protestant errors, can be saved.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 11:26:56 AM
Did you mean to post the following?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm


Chapter 1
1. The Apostle Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) has said: A man that is an heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) after the first and second admonition reject, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that he that is such is subverted and sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit003.htm#verse10) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) resistance to truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm), not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm). These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) which the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one toward another, and toward all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1th003.htm#verse12) In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#verse25)
2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm); though I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) in my vindication at the bar of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who knows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Matthew 5:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse9)
Yes, that's right. Thank you.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 11:27:50 AM
You cannot be a protestant and a catholic at the same time.  Either you believe that Christ gives us His body and blood in the Eucharist, which is necessary for salvation, or you do not.  Either you believe that you must submit to the Church and the pope to be saved, or you do not.  Either you believe that Our Lady was born spotless from sin, and remained so for Her entire life, and was Assumed into Heaven as Queen, or you do not.
.
A confused protestant may not be guilty of heresy (for a time) but they are not a catholic, since they identify with heresy.  Confusion, like ignorance, is a punishment for sin.  If that person has good will and strives for natural goodness, God will remove his confusion and send him the truths of the Faith.  I say that the protestant is not guilty "for a time" because if he stays in his confusion and does not seek truth, he is guilty of spiritual sloth and God will not bless him with the truths which he lazily did not seek.  We cannot say, per Church doctrine, that a confused protestant can be saved.  We can only say that this person, IF HE BECOMES A CATHOLIC, and rejects his protestant errors, can be saved.
I was purposely precise.  "visibly identified as Protestant."  He thinks he's Protestant.

Obstinately denying any of the above is damnable.  Since we can't know for sure that someone is in good faith, we should pray for the salvation of all Protestants, and assume that they are not safe where they are.  Anything else would be irresponsible. 
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 12:04:30 PM
Quote
Obstinately denying any of the above is damnable.  Since we can't know for sure that someone is in good faith, we should pray for the salvation of all Protestants, and assume that they are not safe where they are.
One who identifies as Protestant denies the above doctrines, by definition.  They cannot be saved as a Protestant, no matter their good will.  How do you define "good will" anyway?  They can only be saved if they ACTIVELY reject their heresies, their protestant religion and become catholic.  Salvation is not in the mind.  Being a catholic is not a mental state.  Christ told us to (actively) do good and avoid evil.  We must EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to be saved; we cannot just believe.  To become a catholic is to act to join the Faith.  "Good will" is a mental first step, but it requires the fulfillment of the desire for Truth.  "Good will" does not supply the sacraments; it does not supply membership in the Church; it cannot supply heaven.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 12:24:24 PM
One who identifies as Protestant denies the above doctrines, by definition.  They cannot be saved as a Protestant, no matter their good will.  How do you define "good will" anyway?  They can only be saved if they ACTIVELY reject their heresies, their protestant religion and become catholic.  Salvation is not in the mind.  Being a catholic is not a mental state.  Christ told us to (actively) do good and avoid evil.  We must EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to be saved; we cannot just believe.  To become a catholic is to act to join the Faith.  "Good will" is a mental first step, but it requires the fulfillment of the desire for Truth.  "Good will" does not supply the sacraments; it does not supply membership in the Church; it cannot supply heaven.
If the John 6 passage allows for no exceptions whatsoever, why is it that baptized infants in the Western Rite aren't damned?  (Since, unlike the Eastern Rite, the western rite does not allow infants to receive communion.)  
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 12:43:37 PM
The Eucharist requires necessary instruction before reception.  The requirement to receive begins when one has reason and proper instruction.  But one in a protestant religion rejects even the belief of the Eucharist.  He could not accept instruction in something he rejects.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:48:15 PM
If the John 6 passage allows for no exceptions whatsoever, why is it that baptized infants in the Western Rite aren't damned?  (Since, unlike the Eastern Rite, the western rite does not allow infants to receive communion.)  

That's because there are two different types of necessity involved.  Only Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation.  Holy Communion is not.  I'll try to look up the theological passages on this subject later.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:49:53 PM
Moral Necessity and Necessity of Precept for Holy Communion (while Necessity of Means for Baptism)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm)

The doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is that Holy Communion is morally necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) for salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm), that is to say, without the graces (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14504a.htm) and avoid grievous sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). Moreover, there is according to theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) a Divine precept (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm) by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life. How often this precept urges outside the danger of death it is not easy to say, but many hold that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) has practically determined the Divine precept by the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) of the Fourth Council of Lateran (c.xxi) confirmed by Trent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm), which obliges (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) the faithful (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm) to receive Communion once each year within Paschal Time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11516a.htm).
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:52:25 PM
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#ix (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#ix)

Theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) distinguish a twofold necessity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm), which they call a necessity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of means (medii) and a necessity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm); yet, ignorance (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm) of the precept (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12372b.htm) or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) is grounded on the words of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). In John 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh003.htm), He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), he can not enter into the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm)." Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) makes no exception to this law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of precept but also a necessity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), and the Council of Trent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm) (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm) can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm), without the washing of regeneration (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm) or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm) upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) for salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm). We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm) of perfect charity or contrition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm), including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) for salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) and thus especially to receive baptism.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 03:03:50 PM
That's because there are two different types of necessity involved.  Only Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation.  Holy Communion is not.  I'll try to look up the theological passages on this subject later.
Contextually, we were discussing the view that all who claim to be Protestants are damned.  So it wasn't about baptism of desire per se there.  I forget exactly how we got there, because I'm in all three of the discussions on this issue that are going on at the moment.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: confederate catholic on August 08, 2019, 06:46:24 PM
Byzcat, to be clear Feenyism denies baptism of blood and desire

Some here deny any baptism of desire only

Some hold that there is limited baptism of desire (for example they believe that if you are of good will and desire to join the Church you are in the same state as a catechumen ) trying to follow the doctrine of the Church which says that it is possible to obtain the state of sanctifying grace before the reception of the sacraments (like for example how a perfect act of contrition justifies before confession). Which is borne out in scripture (Peter referring to the saved outside the ark, and the paralytic who was told his sins were forgiven by Christ without either faith or contrition, as well as St. Emerentiana and countless martyrs saved without water baptism and prayed to in countless liturgies)
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
Byzcat, to be clear Feenyism denies baptism of blood and desire

Some here deny any baptism of desire only

Some hold that there is limited baptism of desire (for example they believe that if you are of good will and desire to join the Church you are in the same state as a catechumen ) trying to follow the doctrine of the Church which says that it is possible to obtain the state of sanctifying grace before the reception of the sacraments (like for example how a perfect act of contrition justifies before confession). Which is borne out in scripture (Peter referring to the saved outside the ark, and the paralytic who was told his sins were forgiven by Christ without either faith or contrition, as well as St. Emerentiana and countless martyrs saved without water baptism and prayed to in countless liturgies)
It seems like the logic behind denying baptism of desire and baptism of blood would be similar, right?

I honestly see zero issue with what +Lefebvre said about this issue, its kinda weird/surprising to me that most people here are taking a line that's stricter than what Lefebvre did, just 'cause of what this forum is, not 'cause Lefebvre is automatically right.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: confederate catholic on August 08, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Also you asked about the three sacraments of initiation (this is the eastern view) but as Ladislas pointed out the view is different in the west. You probably need to know the three positions to see where you fit before  wading into the sea of argument
:cheers: :popcorn:
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: confederate catholic on August 08, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
Yes essentially Feenyites are Dogmatic about it. Also remember that according to definition original sins guilt is being born without sanctifying grace which is obtained in more than 1 way
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 07:56:27 PM
Yes essentially Feenyites are Dogmatic about it.

About what?  We are certainly dogmatic about the fact that there's no salvation outside the Church.  What do you have in mind here?
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 07:59:01 PM
About what?  We are certainly dogmatic about the fact that there's no salvation outside the Church.  What do you have in mind here?
Not just that.  Also a particular definition of what it means to be outside the church.  Which is the issue at hand.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 11:20:10 PM

Quote
honestly see zero issue with what +Lefebvre said about this issue

What +ABL was arguing for has nothing to do with BOD; the question of “ignorant” non-Catholics is a totally separate question.  It’s also easier to answer because theologians are much more in unison.  +ABL’s opinion is totally contrary to St Thomas, St Augustine and (most recently) Pope St Pius X.  The fact that people mix-n-match the issues of “ignorance of the Faith” with BOD shows the depths of confusion that the enemies of the Church have sown since the 1600s.  It also shows the extreme deterioration of critical thinking of Modern man. 
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: confederate catholic on August 09, 2019, 12:19:53 AM
Ladislas I am not suggesting anything else than that they hold as dogmatic opinions not expressly condemned. One can hold a EENS without being a heretic for believing in baptism of blood. To a Feenyite it would be heresy. Hope that clarifys my statement
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 08:27:37 AM
Quote
One can hold a EENS without being a heretic for believing in baptism of blood. To a Feenyite it would be heresy.
That's not true.  BOD/BOB is not heresy, yet it's not "de fide".  The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only.  Feeneyites call heresy when anyone speaks of BOD/BOB in relation to people who are not formal catechumens.  This is the only situation that the Church Fathers, St Thomas and St Alphonsus speak of it.  They too, would consider it heresy.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 09, 2019, 09:25:54 AM
Not just that.  Also a particular definition of what it means to be outside the church.  Which is the issue at hand.

Again, dogmatic about what?  We're dogmatic about some aspects of EENS but not dogmatic about others.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 09, 2019, 09:28:49 AM
Ladislas I am not suggesting anything else than that they hold as dogmatic opinions not expressly condemned. One can hold a EENS without being a heretic for believing in baptism of blood. To a Feenyite it would be heresy. Hope that clarifys my statement

That's why I asked the earlier question.  Feeneyites do not in fact consider it heresy to believe in BoD or BoB.  You're confusing Feeneyites with the Dimondites.  Dimondites reject BoB/BoD s heretical; Feeneyites in general do not.  In fact, the Dimonds reject a number of Father Feeney's conclusions.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Ladislaus on August 09, 2019, 09:33:19 AM
That's not true.  BOD/BOB is not heresy, yet it's not "de fide".  The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only.  Feeneyites call heresy when anyone speaks of BOD/BOB in relation to people who are not formal catechumens.  This is the only situation that the Church Fathers, St Thomas and St Alphonsus speak of it.  They too, would consider it heresy.

Right.  This goes back to the fact that until the Jesuit innovators came along around the year 1600, no Catholic ever believed or taught that salvation was possible without explicit knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.  Now, if I were living in the year 1400, I would rightly classify that unanimity among the Church Fathers and of the entire Ecclesia Credens as an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  One might even call the Athanasian Creed an expression of the solemn Magisterium as it had the approbation of multiple popes.  But then one day someone wakes up in the year 1600 and it's no longer infallible and certain because one guy decided to question it out of the blue?  That's nonsense.  Otherwise, one would have to claim that something taught infallibly as a matter of faith can over time cease to be an infallible matter of faith.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 09:41:47 AM
Again, dogmatic about what?  We're dogmatic about some aspects of EENS but not dogmatic about others.
Basically what Pax Vobis said.  I realize you aren't dogmatic about BOD as applied to formal catechumens (well, the Dimonds are, but I realize you guys aren't in agreement with the Dimonds.)  But, at least as far as I understand, Feeneyites *would* consider it heretical to believe that its possible that some individuals who ARE NOT formal catechumens might be inside the Church despite not being formal members by baptism of implicit desire or (in the case of Protestants or EOs) being ignorant enough to not rise to the level of formal heresy, which cuts one off from the member of the Church.

The argument, at least so far as I can make sense of it, is not that those people are saved "outside" the Church (since dogmatically that's impossible) but that in some way those people, if they are in fact saved, are somehow inside the Church despite not being formal members of it.  If I understand you and Pax correctly, you would consider such speculation to be heretical, even though its possible to frame it in a manner that doesn't conflict with the dogma per se.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 09:47:44 AM
Right.  This goes back to the fact that until the Jesuit innovators came along around the year 1600, no Catholic ever believed or taught that salvation was possible without explicit knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.  Now, if I were living in the year 1400, I would rightly classify that unanimity among the Church Fathers and of the entire Ecclesia Credens as an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  One might even call the Athanasian Creed an expression of the solemn Magisterium as it had the approbation of multiple popes.  But then one day someone wakes up in the year 1600 and it's no longer infallible and certain because one guy decided to question it out of the blue?  That's nonsense.  Otherwise, one would have to claim that something taught infallibly as a matter of faith can over time cease to be an infallible matter of faith.
Dante did.  But he's definitely not of enough weight to challenge the consensus on his own.  Justin Martyr thought Socrates, and those pagans who lived in accordance with reason before the coming of Christ, would be saved, but I don't know for sure if he extended that out to pagans who hadn't heard of Christ AFTER Christ came.  At the least it seems reasonable to me that his reasoning could be extended in that way, but I need to look at First Apology again (I'm gonna start a thread soon on this particular section of First Apology, as that seems worth its own separate discussion.  Augustine does say that some Donatists shouldn't be considered heretics.  I realize Donatists believed in the Holy Trinity, so strictly speaking they don't conflict with your argument, however, Augustine's words there do present problems for *other* aspects of your interpretation of EENS (for instance, as far as I understand, you and Pax wouldn't believe that anyone who's visibly associated with Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy can be saved either.  While a separate issue to "virtuous pagans", it still deserves discussion.)

I'd need to do more research.  I realize Cyprian, from as far as I can tell, was an absolute hardliner here, but Cyprian =/= everyone.  It might be true that nobody (besides Dante who isn't canonized) believed that virtuous pagans living *after* the coming of Christ could possibly be saved, and if that is indeed the consensus than I submit to it (I'll also note that this doesn't particularly bother me, I always believed this as a Protestant, and like, God knows better than me anyways) but I'd just want to ensure that that's really the case rather than just assuming.  
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 10:32:40 AM
Quote
The argument, at least so far as I can make sense of it, is not that those people are saved "outside" the Church (since dogmatically that's impossible) but that in some way those people, if they are in fact saved, are somehow inside the Church despite not being formal members of it.  If I understand you and Pax correctly, you would consider such speculation to be heretical, even though its possible to frame it in a manner that doesn't conflict with the dogma per se.

If you believe it as fact, it's heretical because no saint, nor pope, nor council has ever taught such a thing.  (if you want to just speculate on it, then heresy may not be involved, but I'd suggest you pray hard for wisdom since such errors can take root quickly). The Church Fathers, St Thomas, St Alphonsus, etc never applied BOD to anyone but formal catechumens.  If you want to argue that this new view is catholic, you have a lot to prove. 
.
The corruption of BOD began in the 1700-1800s when such novelties were inserted into the Baltimore Catechism in America and it took off from there (adding to the fact that during this time, in America society, more and more Catholics were becoming friends with Protestants, so the social and sentimental reasons for wanting your non-Catholic friends to be saved increased).
.
By the 1940s and 50s, it had gotten so liberal that the formerly-catholic Harvard University was openly teaching that non-catholics can be saved.  This is when Fr Feeney stepped in to debate them, since he lived in the Massachusetts area.  Then modernist rome officials stepped in to silence him (because this was only a few years before V2, and this idea of universal salvation was a key component of their V2 plans).  And the rest is history.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 10:53:41 AM
If you believe it as fact, it's heretical because no saint, nor pope, nor council has ever taught such a thing.  (if you want to just speculate on it, then heresy may not be involved, but I'd suggest you pray hard for wisdom since such errors can take root quickly). The Church Fathers, St Thomas, St Alphonsus, etc never applied BOD to anyone but formal catechumens.  If you want to argue that this new view is catholic, you have a lot to prove.
.
The corruption of BOD began in the 1700-1800s when such novelties were inserted into the Baltimore Catechism in America and it took off from there (adding to the fact that during this time, in America society, more and more Catholics were becoming friends with Protestants, so the social and sentimental reasons for wanting your non-Catholic friends to be saved increased).
.
By the 1940s and 50s, it had gotten so liberal that the formerly-catholic Harvard University was openly teaching that non-catholics can be saved.  This is when Fr Feeney stepped in to debate them, since he lived in the Massachusetts area.  Then modernist rome officials stepped in to silence him (because this was only a few years before V2, and this idea of universal salvation was a key component of their V2 plans).  And the rest is history.
That's what I'm trying to figure out.  Whether its actually a new position. It doesn't seem to be.  I presented Justin Martyr on another thread.  I've cited Augustine's Letter 43 several times, regarding the Donatists (not relevant to BOD 'cause they were baptized and trinitarian, but seemingly relevant to the Protestantism issue).  I have too many question marks at this point to state that its "fact."  For one thing, it definitely does not seem to me that *all* of the Fathers taught this.  It might even be the case that the majority of them were absolutists, but again, I'm not sure (proof-texting quotes can go wrong quickly as well.)  Assuming Vatican II is not dogmatic, I don't think there's anything dogmatic about this.  As far as Vatican II goes, Lumen Gentium seems to allow for the possibility of non-Christians being saved, but you could easily enough interpret that (and we should if its more traditional) to mean that a soul who follows the natural law and is not evangelized through no fault of his own will somehow supernaturally (Perhaps an angel will come to them) be enlightened to the Catholic faith.  Unitatis Redintegratio says that non-Catholic communities are a means of salvation, and that majorly, majorly bothers me (my best attempt to reconcile it, were I to try, would be to point to the valid baptisms in Protestant sects, combined with Augustine's theory on certain donatists, but I still think that section is a ticking time bomb that was from its inception abuseable).

I hold all my conclusions as less than definitive at the moment.  If the hardline position is correct, and everyone who doesn't consciously believe in Catholicism is damned, blessed by the name of the Lord.  I accept that that's a possibility, and I have no complaint or cry of "injustice" if so.  I'm just less than convinced the Church does, or even did before Vatican II, definitively demand that position, which is why I settle for saying you have to, in some way, be inside the Church in order to have a chance of salvation ,and that the only safe way to ensure one is inside the Church is to formally join, participate in her sacraments, etc.  If that makes me a modernist, I pray for further enlightenment.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 10:55:51 AM
I have a separate thread on it, but here's what I keep talking about from Justin Martyr.  This is the entire chapter 46 from First Apology:


Quote
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm), taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) is the first-born (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06081a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), even though they have been thought atheists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm); as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01051a.htm), and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm)it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) and hostile to Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) as a man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of those things which are urgent.


And here is the relevant section from Augustine's letter 43, saying that some among the Donatists "should not be regarded as heretics"


Quote
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]1. The Apostle Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) has said: A man that is an heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) after the first and second admonition reject, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that he that is such is subverted and sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit003.htm#verse10) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) resistance to truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm), not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm). These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) which the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one toward another, and toward all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1th003.htm#verse12) In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#verse25)[/color]
Quote
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm); though I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) in my vindication at the bar of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who knows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Matthew 5:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse9)[/color]

Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
I'm not sure why my new advent citations always copy-paste strangely on here.  Anyways here is letter 43 from Augustine, I tried to copy-paste the first two paragraphs:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm)

And here's Justin Martyr's First Apology, I am citing Chapter 46


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)


I don't understnad how these citations make sense if *any* specuilation of belief in the possibility of salvation outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church is automatically modernist or heretical.  
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 11:15:04 AM
Quote
I've cited Augustine's Letter 43 several times, regarding the Donatists (not relevant to BOD 'cause they were baptized and trinitarian, but seemingly relevant to the Protestantism issue).

Ok, but I thought we were talking about +ABL and hindus?  There are 3 different salvation questions and if they are mixed together, confusion reigns.
.
1.  Non-catholics / BOD-BOB
2.  Baptized heretics / rejection of error
3.  Catholics in material heresy
.
Just like not every catholic who was infected with the Arian heresy was damned, so not every Donatist was.  Only God knows the extent to which they accepted error.  In the beginning years, Anglicans in England were basically 99% catholic except they rejected the pope (not that this rejection is a small matter, but it's an example to show that heresy can often be only 1 error, while all the other beliefs are true.)  Did every Englishman who went along with Henry VIII fully understand the error?  Maybe not.  Only God knows. 
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 11:35:14 AM
Ok, but I thought we were talking about +ABL and hindus?  There are 3 different salvation questions and if they are mixed together, confusion reigns.
.
1.  Non-catholics / BOD-BOB
2.  Baptized heretics / rejection of error
3.  Catholics in material heresy
.
Just like not every catholic who was infected with the Arian heresy was damned, so not every Donatist was.  Only God knows the extent to which they accepted error.  In the beginning years, Anglicans in England were basically 99% catholic except they rejected the pope (not that this rejection is a small matter, but it's an example to show that heresy can often be only 1 error, while all the other beliefs are true.)  Did every Englishman who went along with Henry VIII fully understand the error?  Maybe not.  Only God knows.
OK yes, you're right.  That's confusing.

I'm honestly skeptical that the invincible ignorance principle, even if its true, can be extended all the way out to Hindus and other polytheists.  The best argument I could think of for it is an explicitly scriptural one, Acts 17:30, but even then there are a couple problems with that.  One of them being, I'd be arguing for my own interpretation, which is questionable, and would need to be confirmed in some way.  Second: the Greeks still acknowledged "the Unknown God" ie. they acknowledged that they did not fully understand, that they were still missing something.  Third: God could overlook their ignorance, but  that still might mean they end up in Limbo (barring other mortal sins that they're damned for.)  

Even St Justin's argument, the way I'm understanding it and arguing for it, could plausibly exclude all polytheists whatsoever on principle, and frankly, I think that's probable, even if he's right (which is uncertain.)

So I guess in different places I've been arguing for #1 and for #2.  I've been arguing for the possibility of #1 based on St Justin, and for the possibility of #2 based on St Augustine.  I believe Feeneyites would reject both.

#3 wasn't what I had in mind or what I was discussing, everywhere, since I think everyone (at least here... the Dimonds do push this one sometimes) think that someone in category #3 can be saved.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 03:04:23 PM
Quote
So I guess in different places I've been arguing for #1 and for #2.  I've been arguing for the possibility of #1 based on St Justin, and for the possibility of #2 based on St Augustine.  I believe Feeneyites would reject both.
Here's how we have to understand this doctrine.  The Church infallibly teaches, which is what God wants us to believe, that there is no salvation outside the Church for both 1) non-Catholics and 2) heretics.  We must believe this in a general sense.
.
Has the Church ever said, specifically, that 1) Joe Blow pagan is in hell?  No.  2) Or that Sally heretic is in hell?  No.  It's not our job, nor the Church's to specifically damn anyone to hell.  This is God's own doing.  However, we must teach/believe the general doctrine and leave the rest to God.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: confederate catholic on August 09, 2019, 03:54:35 PM
Ladislas I stand corrected, from my experience in the northeast Iwas iead to believe that not only the Diamonds but Feenyites denied BOB
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 04:38:47 PM
Here's how we have to understand this doctrine.  The Church infallibly teaches, which is what God wants us to believe, that there is no salvation outside the Church for both 1) non-Catholics and 2) heretics.  We must believe this in a general sense.
.
Has the Church ever said, specifically, that 1) Joe Blow pagan is in hell?  No.  2) Or that Sally heretic is in hell?  No.  It's not our job, nor the Church's to specifically damn anyone to hell.  This is God's own doing.  However, we must teach/believe the general doctrine and leave the rest to God.
I feel like the second part of this is a concession to the point I've been making the whole time, and furthermore, that I haven't denied the first part, unless I'm missing something.  

I've conceeded the whole time that unless someone is inside the Church they can't be saved.  The debate has been over whether that always necessarily entails visible membership or not.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 04:47:05 PM

Quote
Has the Church ever said, specifically, that 1) Joe Blow pagan is in hell?  No.  2) Or that Sally heretic is in hell?  No.  It's not our job, nor the Church's to specifically damn anyone to hell. 
But the Church does teach that if Joe Pagan and Sally heretic didn't join the Church before they died, they were not saved.  What does "joining the Church" mean?  It can only mean Baptism or (in the case of Sally, who's baptized and already a member, an abjuration of heresies).  
.
BOD is not visible membership.  
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Struthio on September 12, 2020, 12:24:47 PM
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”



Quote from: PAPA GREGORIO XVI
EPISTOLA
 DEL SOMMO PONTEFICE
 GREGORIO XVI
DOLOREM QUO

[...]
Certo non altro vogliono i ministri protestanti se non che il clero cattolico, indotto a un tal modo di agire, attenui poi nel popolo fedele la memoria di quel dogma che riguarda la necessità della fede e dell’unità cattolica, al fine di raggiungere la salvezza; così essi potranno più facilmente adescare molti altri, in modo che si allontanino dallo stretto sentiero della verità cattolica e imbocchino sciaguratamente l’ampia via dell’errore e della perdizione.
[...]
Quote from: deepL translation
Of course, Protestant ministers want nothing more than for the Catholic clergy, induced to act in such a way, to soften in the faithful people the memory of that dogma that concerns the necessity of faith and Catholic unity, in order to reach salvation; in this way they can more easily lure many others away from the narrow path of Catholic truth and take the wide path of error and perdition.


vatican.va (http://www.vatican.va/content/gregorius-xvi/it/documents/epistola-dolorem-quo-30-novembre-1839.html)
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on September 12, 2020, 01:45:45 PM
There's no more doubts or unanswered questions where Fr. Cekada is now. May he rest in peace.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Yeti on September 12, 2020, 02:36:16 PM
[font=&quot,serif]#1 they think that Hell is an amorphous solid mass of horrific punishments
[/font]
[/size]
Scripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: Last Tradhican on September 12, 2020, 02:44:27 PM
Scripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".
Why would I defend something I didn't say?
By the way, Limbo of the infants (a natural paradise) is in Hell.
Title: Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
Post by: ByzCat3000 on September 16, 2020, 05:17:31 AM
Scripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".
I'm curious about this.  Last Tradhican rightly replied that Limbo is a paradise in Hell.  So one does wonder if a naturally virtuous pagan who didn't have supernatural faith but had few mortal sins could perhaps get something that is not quite that but maybe somewhat close to it, perhaps suffering the pain of loss alone, as is shown by Dante's 1st circle, or perhaps some mild torment.

From what I'm aware, the *images* of Hell in Scripture and Tradition are primarily intended to make people fearful to end up there (though that's not to say they aren't accurate, understand.)  And since Scripture is written to Catholics, could we *speculate* that what's being described there is the kind of torment that Catholics who don't cooperate with the many graces they are given are going to end up with?  And that perhaps, say, some Muslim in the sand dunes of Saudi Arabia who lives a naturally good life might end up with an eternity that's.... something closer to just living in Saudi Arabia? ;) 

I find the speculation interesting at any rate and I'm curious if anything would rule it out.