Author Topic: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS? (Read 1789 times)

Xenophon · « **on:** June 03, 2021, 05:26:11 AM »

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is...”

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2021, 10:19:26 AM »

The good Bishop, may God rest his soul, was right and good on most things, but in this area he was wrong. +ABL was French, and that country doesn't have a good track record of orthodoxy since the post-French Revolution days. Many of the Modernists at V2 were French.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2021, 11:53:47 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 03, 2021, 10:19:26 AM

.... French, and that country doesn't have a good track record of orthodoxy since the post-French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn days. Many of the Modernists at V2 were French.

As a result of which, less than 4% of French go to mass.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2021, 11:54:49 AM »

I don't see the relevance to Trad Catholics.

Everyone non-Catholic who asks me, I tell them they must convert and be baptized. I've never once recommended "just be a good person".

As for the salvation of this or that non-Catholic person, WHAT DOES IT MATTER -- we're not them! And we can't control them. And so?

Talk about a classic case of ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. Leave it to God; He knows best!

For our part, all WE need to worry about is doing our best to convert others, learn the Faith WELL and enough apologetics to be useful to God in bringing our fellow man to the barque of salvation, we work on saving our own souls (and the souls of those entrusted to our care, those in our family)... and then leave the rest to God.

I don't see the problem.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2021, 11:58:25 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on June 03, 2021, 11:54:49 AM

I don't see the relevance to Trad Catholics.

Everyone non-Catholic who asks me, I tell them they must convert and be baptized. I've never once recommended "just be a good person".

As for the salvation of this or that non-Catholic person, WHAT DOES IT MATTER -- we're not them! And we can't control them. And so?

We do our best to convert others, we work on saving our own soul (and the souls of those entrusted to our care, those in our family), and leave the rest to God.

I don't see the problem.

You see the problem, you just said it "Everyone non-Catholic who asks me, I tell them they must convert and be baptized. I've never once recommended "just be a good person".

The problem is that none of the people writing books that defend the teachings quoted in the OP, none of them answer what you just wrote when asked.

I guarantee you the the newest mass producer of CI BOD threads, XavierSem, has NEVER answered anyone with what you just wrote. The reason is that they do not believe that one needs to be a baptized Catholic to be in a state of sanctifying grace, and they do not want to "scare anyone away" with unnecessary "rigorism". It is the foundational pillar of Vatican II church mindset: they do not believe that one needs to be a baptized Catholic to be in a state of sanctifying grace.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2021, 12:13:40 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on June 03, 2021, 11:54:49 AM

I don't see the relevance to Trad Catholics.

Everyone non-Catholic who asks me, I tell them they must convert and be baptized. I've never once recommended "just be a good person".

As for the salvation of this or that non-Catholic person, WHAT DOES IT MATTER -- we're not them! And we can't control them. And so?

Talk about a classic case of ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. Leave it to God; He knows best!

For our part, all WE need to worry about is doing our best to convert others, learn the Faith WELL and enough apologetics to be useful to God in bringing our fellow man to the barque of salvation, we work on saving our own souls (and the souls of those entrusted to our care, those in our family)... and then leave the rest to God.

I don't see the problem.

Matthew, the problem is theological. In accepting the loose definitions of EENS, one would be compelled to accept Vatican II ecclesiology and AT LEAST 95% of Vatican II (if not 100%). That's the big issue here with regard to this dogma.

Major: There's no salvation outside the Church.
Minor: Jєωs, Muslims, heretics, schismatics can be saved.
Conclusion: Jєωs, Muslims, heretics, schismatics can be inside the Church.

It's really that simple.

Now, what kind of Church is that which includes not only Catholics but also Jєωs, Muslims, heretics, and schismatics?

It's the Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology in a nutshell, where the subsistent core is the visible Church, but then these non-Catholics are still within the Church in varying degrees.

THAT is why it's so important. If I believed in the loose EENS, then I would be compelled to drop all opposition to the doctrine of Vatican II, and Traditional Catholicism would reduce to a question of the New Mass only.

Now, some practical ramifications are it leading to religious indifferentism and the destruction of missionary zeal.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2021, 12:21:57 PM »

Maybe it's because I hold a practical EENS at the very least. Even though I wouldn't get upset with someone saying what +ABL said -- I wouldn't let it cramp my missionary zeal, opposition to Vatican II (which must be destroyed, BTW) or recommendations for converts to get baptized.

Just like my day-to-day Trad life is indistinguishable from the average Sedevacantist. My opinion of Vatican II certainly is. Except for a couple important differences: I don't waste time & energy hating the putative Pope -- I don't own a dartboard with Pope Francis' picture on it -- and I don't spend hours a week arguing sedevacantism online :)

If someone called me a practical sedevacantist, I wouldn't get all upset. It's that VIRTUALLY or PRACTICALLY that makes all the difference. Accuracy is important. There are nuances to most truths. The fact is, I don't give Francis the Destroyer much thought -- if I did, I might end up an official sedevacantist. There is no way I could figure out or "untangle" the mess the Church is in right now. That includes the status of the last several popes. Sede-privationism, Sede-impeditism, Sede-vacantism, Sede-plenism -- where is the truth? It can't be achieved or grasped by me, since it's basically a supernatural truth, in my opinion. Men can't achieve it by human reason alone. God would have to personally reveal it to us, like He did with the Holy Trinity. We men don't have the wherewithal to figure it out. The last 50 years of Church Crisis have proven that, in my opinion.

See my past thread on the One Ring analogy. If the truth HAD been found by any group, then it would logically follow that everyone NOT in that group -- 100% of them -- would be of bad will, without the use of reason, or stupid. But I've seen intelligent men, making sacrifices and living a God-centered life (living for the next world), in many different parts of Tradition. Ergo.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-there-a-one-ring-in-tradition-to-rule-them-all/

The Crisis in the Church is grave, unprecedented AND mysterious -- and that's an understatement! It has driven men literally mad -- men greater than myself. So I stay grounded and sane by staying mostly in the practical, down to earth realm.

StLouisIX · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2021, 02:04:32 PM »

Quote from: Xenophon on June 03, 2021, 05:26:11 AM

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is...”

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Although I agree a lot with what Archbishop Lefebvre said overall, this is the one area where I find myself in total disagreement with him. I just don't see how this idea of his is any different from the modernist Karl Rahner's concept of the "Anonymous Christian".

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2021, 04:22:08 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on June 03, 2021, 11:58:25 AM

You see the problem, you just said it "Everyone non-Catholic who asks me, I tell them they must convert and be baptized. I've never once recommended "just be a good person".

The problem is that none of the people writing books that defend the teachings quoted in the OP, none of them answer what you just wrote when asked.

I guarantee you the the newest mass producer of CI BOD threads, XavierSem, has NEVER answered anyone with what you just wrote. The reason is that they do not believe that one needs to be a baptized Catholic to be in a state of sanctifying grace, and they do not want to "scare anyone away" with unnecessary "rigorism". It is the foundational pillar of Vatican II church mindset: they do not believe that one needs to be a baptized Catholic to be in a state of sanctifying grace.

Wouldn't ABL also respond this way to a non-Catholic if he was asked? I highly doubt any traditional Catholic priest would tell a non-Catholic they could just be a good person.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2021, 05:55:15 AM »

Quote from: StLouisIX on June 03, 2021, 02:04:32 PM

Although I agree a lot with what Archbishop Lefebvre said overall, this is the one area where I find myself in total disagreement with him. I just don't see how this idea of his is any different from the modernist Karl Rahner's concept of the "αnσnymσus Christian".

It's not. It's identical to Rahner's AC theory. Rahner took heat from the more radical heretics because he posited that Christ was still the instrumental cause of their salvation. That's exactly what +Lefebvre articulated, that people are saved BY the Church even if they are not in the Church. Unfortunately, this is a denial of the teaching that there's no salvation except IN the Church.

As I posted above, if you put these types IN the Church, that destroys Tridentine ecclesiology and gives us all the Vatican II errors.

And the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre fell victim to this innovation shows how deeply it had penetrated Catholic seminaries long before Vatican II. Father Feeney was waging his battle nearly 15 years before Vatican II against people who explicitly rejected EENS dogma. "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." That statement from a Catholic cardinal.

angelusmaria · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2021, 01:26:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on June 03, 2021, 12:21:57 PM

Maybe it's because I hold a practical EENS at the very least. Even though I wouldn't get upset with someone saying what +ABL said -- I wouldn't let it cramp my missionary zeal, opposition to Vatican II (which must be destroyed, BTW) or recommendations for converts to get baptized.

Just like my day-to-day Trad life is indistinguishable from the average Sedevacantist. My opinion of Vatican II certainly is. Except for a couple important differences: I don't waste time & energy hating the putative Pope -- I don't own a dartboard with Pope Francis' picture on it -- and I don't spend hours a week arguing sedevacantism online :)

If someone called me a practical sedevacantist, I wouldn't get all upset. It's that VIRTUALLY or PRACTICALLY that makes all the difference. Accuracy is important. There are nuances to most truths. The fact is, I don't give Francis the Destroyer much thought -- if I did, I might end up an official sedevacantist. There is no way I could figure out or "untangle" the mess the Church is in right now. That includes the status of the last several popes. Sede-privationism, Sede-impeditism, Sede-vacantism, Sede-plenism -- where is the truth? It can't be achieved or grasped by me, since it's basically a supernatural truth, in my opinion. Men can't achieve it by human reason alone. God would have to personally reveal it to us, like He did with the Holy Trinity. We men don't have the wherewithal to figure it out. The last 50 years of Church Crisis have proven that, in my opinion.

See my past thread on the One Ring analogy. If the truth HAD been found by any group, then it would logically follow that everyone NOT in that group -- 100% of them -- would be of bad will, without the use of reason, or stupid. But I've seen intelligent men, making sacrifices and living a God-centered life (living for the next world), in many different parts of Tradition. Ergo.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-there-a-one-ring-in-tradition-to-rule-them-all/

The Crisis in the Church is grave, unprecedented AND mysterious -- and that's an understatement! It has driven men literally mad -- men greater than myself. So I stay grounded and sane by staying mostly in the practical, down to earth realm.

ditto.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2021, 09:07:47 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on June 03, 2021, 11:58:25 AM

You see the problem, you just said it "Everyone non-Catholic who asks me, I tell them they must convert and be baptized. I've never once recommended "just be a good person".

The problem is that none of the people writing books that defend the teachings quoted in the OP, none of them answer what you just wrote when asked.

I guarantee you the the newest mass producer of CI BOD threads, XavierSem, has NEVER answered anyone with what you just wrote. The reason is that they do not believe that one needs to be a baptized Catholic to be in a state of sanctifying grace, and they do not want to "scare anyone away" with unnecessary "rigorism". It is the foundational pillar of Vatican II church mindset: they do not believe that one needs to be a baptized Catholic to be in a state of sanctifying grace.

I don't want to speak for Xavier one way or the other, but remember that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote this *to Catholics*. Whether he was right or whether he was wrong. We don't know (or at least, I don't, based on this quote) what he would've said to a pagan or a Muslim or a Protestant. We *do* know however that he spent decades in Africa as a missionary, so I seriously doubt he would've said "Just be a good person."

I will admit, I have a tendency towards autistic precision (literally, I have aspergers lol) so I'll usually give a semi-nuanced answer like "you're seriously endangering your soul if you don't convert), and I've wondered if maybe its more prudent to just say "yeah, you'll be damned if you don't convert" for most people. In any case I think you have to use prudence when it comes to dealing with specific people.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2021, 12:45:47 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on June 05, 2021, 09:07:47 AM

I will admit, I have a tendency towards autistic precision (literally, I have aspergers lol) so I'll usually give a semi-nuanced answer like "you're seriously endangering your soul if you don't convert), and I've wondered if maybe its more prudent to just say "yeah, you'll be damned if you don't convert" for most people. In any case I think you have to use prudence when it comes to dealing with specific people.

Yes, prudence is key if you want to bring people to the Faith. Most will harden their hearts when you plainly tell them that they will go to hell if they do not convert, as true as a statement as it is. But, conversely, it could also be a means of opening God's grace into their hearts depending upon how that message is taken.

For me, the threat of hell never worked until after I was a Catholic. But, if you have a smart enough person you're talking to, I've found a discussion about God as the Good Itself could be more persuasive. That, at least, is more or less what convinced me and stuck with me.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2021, 01:05:56 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on June 05, 2021, 12:45:47 PM

Yes, prudence is key if you want to bring people to the Faith. Most will harden their hearts when you plainly tell them that they will go to hell if they do not convert, as true as a statement as it is. But, conversely, it could also be a means of opening God's grace into their hearts depending upon how that message is taken.

For me, the threat of hell never worked until after I was a Catholic. But, if you have a smart enough person you're talking to, I've found a discussion about God as the Good Itself could be more persuasive. That, at least, is more or less what convinced me and stuck with me.

If you literally believe that its 100%, no wiggle room, no room for God to make an individual judgment (because you believe the collective judgment at, say, Florence, is already individually applied) than sure, there's no wisdom in hiding the truth. I do not believe this, I believe that we don't know for sure whether any particular Protestant, Muslim, etc. will or won't be saved, but I believe their religion objectively leads to damnation as Lefebvre says. So there's different ways you can present that sort of message, you can completely ignore the subjective and just focus in on the objective, or you can look at both (I think looking *just* or even *primarily* at the subjective is what gets you to V2, but I think there's room to *acknowledge* the subjective as Lefebvre does while keeping the emphasis objective.)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2021, 03:10:33 PM »

Honestly I think it's a little insane that 82 percent of people disagree w Lefebvre here.

Not that everyone should have to agree with Lefebvre just... The proportions on here are wild. The internet really is a different world than real life at an sspx or even sede chapel

Poll

Can souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion without ever explicitly professing faith in Catholicism? (saved as/in Protestantism, saved as/in Islam, saved as/in Buddhism, etc.),

Author Topic: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS? (Read 1789 times)

Xenophon

How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Pax Vobis

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Last Tradhican

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Matthew

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Last Tradhican

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Ladislaus

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Matthew

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

StLouisIX

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

2Vermont

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

Ladislaus

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

angelusmaria

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

ByzCat3000

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

DigitalLogos

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

ByzCat3000

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?

ByzCat3000

Re: How Many Here Believe Literally in EENS?