Just wondering, do you have a source for the Fr. Cekada thing?

I tried finding it for a while but couldn't.  It's been cited here on CathInfo a number of times.  I'll try to dig it up.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “... I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Thank you for finding this.

This sentence speaks volumes.  "Refuse to believe".  Not that he's persuaded by theological argument not to believe it, but he "simply refuses to believe" (aka an act of the will) ... to which St. Thomas Aquinas attributes all error and heresy.

Thank you for finding this.

This sentence speaks volumes.  "Refuse to believe".  Not that he's persuaded by theological argument not to believe it, but he "simply refuses to believe" (aka an act of the will) ... to which St. Thomas Aquinas attributes all error and heresy.

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

If I have the time it would be good to start a thread based on this Cekada admittance.  

At least he was honest. 

Yes he was ... in one of the rare few times I've seen one of the BoDers admit their true motivation.

Dogmas always mean what they say - and always maintain that same meaning forever, as the dogma as decreed at V1 states:

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Per V1, no one is even allowed to interpret dogma, the Church saw to it that there is no need for it and in fact, it would seem that one disagrees with both it, and the Church's infallibility when they feel the need to interpret it.

Dogmas are not new ideas, dogmas are basically doctrines defined ex cathedra and have been part of tradition since the time of the Apostles. They have either been debated amongst theologians, sometimes for many centuries, then at some point after all debating has exhausted itself, finally the pope closes the matter ex cathedra (this is what  many wish would happen regarding a BOD), or they are doctrines that have always been believed like Our Lady's Assumption into heaven, that finally are defined ex cathedra for a clearer understanding among all the faithful.


When it comes to the EENS dogma, Fr. Wathen states clearly what typically occurs:

"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying".

I find the constant assumption that those who hold to the possibility of being inside the Church without being a visible member are just being emotional or looking for loopholes a bit irritating.  I assume you'd also accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of the same?  Was he a modernist?

I find, philosophically, the idea that any text whatsoever does not need any interpretation whatsoever to be absurd.  I agree that this concept can be abused by modernists, who want to make texts believe something completely different than what it originally meant, and I think that's what Vatican I was trying to rule out (certainly it still happened, however.)  But the idea that there was no development, whatsoever, between the early church and Vatican I, seems impossible to defend either.

Honestly, I find the witch hunts on both sides kind of irritating.  I find it irritating when the Feeneyites get called extremists, and I find it irritating when Baptism of Desire advocates get called modernists.  I mean, I think we should be discussing these things, but ultimately we agree on  lot more than we don't.  And I still haven't seen anywhere *near* sufficient proof, either something absolutely irrrefutable from the past, or actual Vatican action, that would lead me to believe that either side is definitively heretical.

I find the constant assumption that those who hold to the possibility of being inside the Church without being a visible member are just being emotional or looking for loopholes a bit irritating.

The reason that the benefit of the doubt is not given is because this type of modernist thinking has been around for over 200 years, since the early 1800s.  It was also around before that, when 3 other councils in the history of the Church defined dogmas which condemned such thinking.  This attack against the doctrine of exclusive salvation is a never-ending attack.  V2 brought it up again, and now 95% of catholics are infected with this error, to some degree.

I assume you'd also accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of the same?  Was he a modernist?

I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism.  We all are, in some areas of our life.  Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies."  It's prideful to think any of us is immune.

I find, philosophically, the idea that any text whatsoever does not need any interpretation whatsoever to be absurd.

The Church has ruled that, except where She has said that texts of the Bible are symbolic, that Scripture is to be read with a literal interpretation.  When the Church gathers all Cardinals, Bishops and theologians together for a council, in order to condemn errors and teach doctrine, She spends months and years to formulate the doctrinal statements so that they are clear, concise, and simple to understand.  This is Her purpose - to teach simply so that even a child can understand the Faith.  So, yes, doctrines are meant to be read in a literal sense, especially since they come from the Pope, through his power of infallibility, wherein God protects him from error in teaching truth.

But the idea that there was no development, whatsoever, between the early church and Vatican I, seems impossible to defend either.

It depends what you mean by development.  Modernists want to define development as meaning that doctrine "changes over time" to "suit the needs of man in each age".  This is totally heretical.  The Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles, which they preached to all the nations, which was handed down to the Church Fathers, which has been handed down 2,000 years to us is absolutely, 100% the same - with nothing added, edited or removed.  This is why Tradition and doctrine is said to be believed "everywhere, always and by all."
.
However, we can say that doctrine "improves" in the sense that by prayer, apparitions and enlightenments of Saints, God gives greater understanding, depth and wisdom concerning the Divine Truths which doctrines seek to explain.  This does not mean that doctrine changes; it just means that God gives us more details.  Our simple minds can never fully understand Divine Truths, which is why we will continue to learn for all eternity about God, if we make it to heaven.
.

Honestly, I find the witch hunts on both sides kind of irritating.  I find it irritating when the Feeneyites get called extremists, and I find it irritating when Baptism of Desire advocates get called modernists.  I mean, I think we should be discussing these things, but ultimately we agree on  lot more than we don't.  And I still haven't seen anywhere *near* sufficient proof, either something absolutely irrrefutable from the past, or actual Vatican action, that would lead me to believe that either side is definitively heretical.

It's important to remember that this debate over baptism of desire/blood is party based on doctrine and partly based on theological speculation.  There is gray area here; the Church has yet to teach on this with 100% clarity.  The contention is over the boundaries of the gray area.
.
Feeneyites/St Thomas-ites would say the gray area is small.  BOD only concerns a small, unique situation.  Most others, due to the liberalism since the 1800s, the anti-St Thomas modernists of the 1900s and the freemasonic V2 of 1960 - say that the gray area affects all non-catholics, since God's mercy is limitless.

I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism.  We all are, in some areas of our life.  Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies."  It's prideful to think any of us is immune.

Modernism is not an infection in various areas of our life.

Rather, modernism is a bag full of condemned heresies. Anyone adhering to one or more of the modernist errors described in Pascendi dominici gregis or listed in Lamentabili sane exitu is excommunicated lata sententia.

A latae sententiae penalty is a penalty with sentence already passed.


See St. Pius X.: Praestantia Scripturae, 11/18/1907