Author Topic: Suprema Haec and Vatican II on EENS (Read 5927 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2016, 07:32:12 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: An even Seven

Saying those who knowing the Church was made necessary by Christ cannot be saved, absolutely implies that those who do not know that the Church was made necessary can be saved. Those who don’t know the Church was made necessary by Jesus include: Jews, Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Apostates and Heretics who no longer believe this Truth. This is not only possible salvation for the invincibly ignorant but nearly universal salvation.

Exactly. More than that, can you think of any group of people who know that the Church was made necessary by Jesus Christ but refuse to enter it? I hardly can, perhaps Satanists. Jews, Muslims, Protestants etc. are in their false religions precisely because they don't know that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ and they think their false religions are true. Thus, such definition of EENS as in Lumen Gentium 14 makes the dogma absolutely meaningless (not to mention that implication of this definition - possibility of salvation for those who don't know that Christ made the Church necessary - is contrary to infallible EENS definitions).

I think that some how, they all know that their religion is false and the Catholic Church is the only true Church because at some point, the graces surely were offered to prompt them toward the truth, but they rejected them. This rejection the enemy dubs as mere ignorance or "those who don't know" - this is the heretical disclaimer that is accepted by the masses which entirely changes the meaning of the dogma to the point that it is meaningless.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2016, 08:11:16 AM »

Yes, it's certainly not false to state that those who refuse to join the Church while knowing it to be the true religion cannot be saved. What's false is the implication, that those who do not join the Church while NOT knowing it to be the true religion can be saved. They must be within the Church in order to be saved. Again, to state that someone can be formally within the Church while materially outside, that's one thing. But this constant nonsense about how people can be saved outside the Church is just straightfoward heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2016, 08:12:36 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: An even Seven

Saying those who knowing the Church was made necessary by Christ cannot be saved, absolutely implies that those who do not know that the Church was made necessary can be saved. Those who don’t know the Church was made necessary by Jesus include: Jews, Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Apostates and Heretics who no longer believe this Truth. This is not only possible salvation for the invincibly ignorant but nearly universal salvation.

Exactly. More than that, can you think of any group of people who know that the Church was made necessary by Jesus Christ but refuse to enter it? I hardly can, perhaps Satanists. Jews, Muslims, Protestants etc. are in their false religions precisely because they don't know that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ and they think their false religions are true. Thus, such definition of EENS as in Lumen Gentium 14 makes the dogma absolutely meaningless (not to mention that implication of this definition - possibility of salvation for those who don't know that Christ made the Church necessary - is contrary to infallible EENS definitions).

Exactly. How many people cannot be saved then by this criterion? "Yes, the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ, but I REFUSE to join it anyway." Ridiculous. This may apply to a handful of Satanists at best.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2016, 08:54:47 AM »

Nishant,

Quote

As to the other question, one thing is to have a personal conviction that a teaching is irreformable and that the Magisterium will definitely affirm this one day and another is to say, while discussions are still going on, that the other side are heretics. Many Thomists held that Molinism is incorrect and opposed to the Second Synod of Orange and Trent, but when the Church decided She would hear arguments from both sides before pronouncing definitive judgment, out of love and devotion to the Apostolic See, they refrained from accusing the others of heresy; we should do likewise, because only the Church can say at some future time that one of the two opinions which are currently permitted and have been taught by Saints and Doctors (like St. Alphonsus in Theologia Moralis, of whom the Pope said, "Why come to Rome? Ask Fr. Ligouri" when a question was posed to him) as allowable in the theology manuals used in seminaries for centuries is now closed. They have been used in seminaries with the approval of Popes and Doctors. In a similar way, St. Francis De Sales was in favor of not passing definitive judgment between Thomism and Molinism, at least for a while, until one side made a better case from Scripture and Tradition than the other. I believe the Church will settle the matter in favor of explicit faith one day, we can work to make that happen, but we cannot pass that judgment ourselves.

I said this was a “good point” and let me thank you for making it.

It brought some clarity to my thinking on the issue and how it should be treated - and how those who disagree with me should be treated.

As your subsequent quotes from Father Fenton, St. Alphonsus and Fr. Mueller showed, the question has been left open by the Church . . . although I feel like the Dominicans (whom I also side with on the grace question) who accused the Jesuits (Molinists) of being heretics with a heretical understanding - same why I feel about the “implicit faith” crowd. LOL

Thanks again, very astute.

God Bless,

DR

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #19 on:** October 04, 2016, 08:49:03 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Letter of the Holy Office
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Quote from: Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, #14
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Nearly Identical

Identical. How can associations like the SSPX, Resistance, SSPV, and CMRI pretend to oppose Vatican II when they support the 1949 Holy Office Letter which teaches the same heresy?

These associations pretend to oppose the Novus Ordo, but they teach that heretics who go to Presbyterian, Anglican, or Lutheran services can be saved as long as they don't know that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Will those in the Novus Ordo be saved as long as they don't know that the Traditional Latin Mass is the true worship? If the blind followers of the blind will not fall into the pit after all, provided that they don't know any better, then what justification do these "traditional" associations have for existing?

The letter the Saint Benedict Center wrote to the SSPX many years ago is still very relevant:

Quote

You [the SSPX] very admirably defend the traditional Mass. But at the same time it seems evident to many that you uphold the heresy that was behind the implantation of the New Mass. What difference, may I ask, does it make what Mass one goes to, if his sincerity is what determines his state of soul? Some people are very sincere about Jehovah’s Witness services! Are they, according to your theology, to be blamed? If not, why do you insist Catholics stop going to the Novus Ordo? What right do you have to disturb their conscience, if salvation depends upon sincerity? You yourself admit that the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” really means that there is no salvation without the Church — as if the defining Church of the past had no idea what it really meant by choosing the Latin word “extra” rather than “sine.” You prefer to accent the general truth, which is more of a truism, and suppress the more specific truth, which is a challenge. Yet you find this same tactic abhorrent in the liturgical demolitionists who replaced the pro multis with “for all men.”

http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

As Fr. Wathen wrote, the dogma "outside the church there is no salvation" is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity.