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

Author Topic: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written  (Read 9892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
« Reply #35 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.

Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
« Reply #36 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.


Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
« Reply #37 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, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, 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, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we knowit would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, 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 of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof 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 has said: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 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 who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, 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, not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic Church which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans. 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 which the Holy Spirit 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 one toward another, and toward all men. 1 Thessalonians 3:12 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, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26[/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; though I believe 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, and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness in my vindication at the bar of God, who knows the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God. Matthew 5:9[/color]


Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
« Reply #38 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

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


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.  

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
« Reply #39 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.