Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written  (Read 1037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17566
  • Reputation: +9857/-4291
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2019, 09:25:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17566
    • Reputation: +9857/-4291
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #31 on: August 09, 2019, 09:28:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17566
    • Reputation: +9857/-4291
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #32 on: August 09, 2019, 09:33:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #33 on: August 09, 2019, 09:41:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #34 on: August 09, 2019, 09:47:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4426
    • Reputation: +2704/-1246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #35 on: August 09, 2019, 10:32:40 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #36 on: August 09, 2019, 10:53:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #37 on: August 09, 2019, 10:55:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]



    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #38 on: August 09, 2019, 10:57:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4426
    • Reputation: +2704/-1246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #39 on: August 09, 2019, 11:15:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #40 on: August 09, 2019, 11:35:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4426
    • Reputation: +2704/-1246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #41 on: August 09, 2019, 03:04:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline confederate catholic

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 479
    • Reputation: +183/-22
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #42 on: August 09, 2019, 03:54:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislas I stand corrected, from my experience in the northeast Iwas iead to believe that not only the Diamonds but Feenyites denied BOB
    قامت مريم، ترتيل وفاء جحا و سلام جحا

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #43 on: August 09, 2019, 04:38:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4426
    • Reputation: +2704/-1246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede Fr. Cekada Refuses to believe EENS Dogmas as they are Written
    « Reply #44 on: August 09, 2019, 04:47:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.  

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16