Author Topic: Fr. Ryland Explains Church's Interpretation of EENS (Read 1856 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2009, 05:52:24 AM »

Quote

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

I wonder if they would try to explain this away using the same arguments they use to explain away the condemnations of religious liberty, saying that Pius IX was only condemning the extreme position - as if speculating that Hell is empty is not extreme.

Jehanne · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:27:39 PM »

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:35:51 PM »

"Stupidville" is hardly the place to go for orthodox anything.

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:47:53 PM »

:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:

I know a guy who went there actually! He is now a sede, and holds the correct position on EENS, that to become one of the faithful, you must receive the sacrament of baptism in water before death, as the dogmas say.

God's grace is therefore (obviously) greater than the sinful lies at Stupidville (

)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:49:19 PM »

I actually heard the name from a man who went there - and now sees it is a joke (a bad one).

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:49:58 PM »

Hey, I went to Notre Dame, but that doesn't mean I cannot see it is a pit of Modernism.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:02:59 PM »

CM · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:05:47 PM »

Which the Church did. Infallibly. More than once.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:00:22 PM »

I promise I do not get royalties from Mr Omlor, but he happens to have written an excellent article on this topic as well.

CM · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:20:10 PM »

Called?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:57:56 AM »

Ok, I just read Aquinas refuting the Feeneyite argument. Do the Feeneyites say he is a heretic as well?

Third Part
Question 68
Article 2

Quote

No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2009, 02:05:36 AM »

CM,

No offense, but Feeneyism is absurd to me as people who lived ignorant of Christ would be necessarily cast into Hell for not being water baptized when they had no opportunity to be baptized. It offends against basic justice and, in my opinion, turns Christ into some sort of absolutist more concerned with the letter of the law than its spirit.

Anyway, do you know if SBC ever reconciled with Rome?

I think I remember someone saying they reconciled through linguistic sleight of hand. They agreed that it is theoretically possible for God to save without water Baptism (since He is omnipotent) but that they believe the number of people saved in this way are zero. As long as they kept their belief in this form, (private opinion) the story goes that Rome allowed them back in. Have you heard this? Thanks.

CM · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2009, 02:49:34 AM »

SBC?

Believing that people who have never heard of Christ can be saved is utterly ridiculous, heretical and apostate.

Even the Fathers who believed in baptism of desire did not believe this.

Aquinas cannot "refute" infallible dogmas. And the dogmas are clear: It is as much a Divinely revealed truth that God is omnipotent and CAN do all things as it is that He WILL NOT save the unbaptized.

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2009, 02:54:16 AM »

Author Topic: Fr. Ryland Explains Church&#039;s Interpretation of EENS (Read 1856 times)

Author Topic: Fr. Ryland Explains Church's Interpretation of EENS (Read 1856 times)