This was written by Bishop McKenna:

Quote

I answer your ‘one simple question’ regarding Fr. Denis Fahey’s saying, ‘The Jєωs, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jєω who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’

“Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: “The Jєωs, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jєω who rejects our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.’ I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”

I just read it a second time so some of the below you can discount.  I don't believe you can reject the Lord and have a supernatural faith.  The common belief is that in addition to believing in God who punishes evil and rewards good, you must at minimum believe in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.  So if he in fact rejects our Lord, in the way that it is necessary to accept him, he may fail the smell test and be damned.  Reliable people have told me that the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity must be explicit.  If that is indeed the case, then such would be damned.  However it has not authoritatively been defined that one must believe this.  It is possible that one only believe in God's existence and that he rewards good and punishes evil at a minimum with a supernatural faith at a minimum.

However I am not nearly learned enough to contradict the above two.   If I am thinking that Father Fahey is the reliable Priest I am thinking of.  

Does God damn the good willed who follow the natural law.  It is impossible to follow the natural law for an extended period of time without being in a state of sanctifying grace according to Aquinas.  There is reason for the debate over whether explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity was never definitively settled.  Though perhaps such can and will be settled in the future in this world, certainly in the next.  

Can a person go through his life not culpable (guilty) of a mortal sin and love God with a perfect charity and supernatural faith while at the same time not having an explicit belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity?  

The answer to that question is the answer to your question. It is not been definitively settled.  

The "obstinate wrangling" should be left to the experts, whose bodies are in the grave and whose souls are in heaven.  We can only accept what we know the Church teaches, and be charitable in our disagreements on things not definitively settled.  

Are you saying that this is what you understand by implicit baptism of desire? Do you agree with Fahey and McKenna?

What he is trying to say, I believe, is that God looks at the heart.  If a person believes that stealing a penny is a mortal sin and he steals a penny and dies unrepentant of that act he will go to Hell.  This is basic theology.  Were you aware of that?  Contrarily, if a person, through no fault of his own, thinks contraception is okay and commits that act without being sorry for it, he will not be damned for that sin.  Basic theology.  Where you aware of that?  This is the distinction when the above talking about objectively (contraception is a mortal sin) and subjectively (their conscience is clear and in good shape in the eyes of God as they are not condemned for thing that, through no fault of their own, they did not know was evil).

Quote from: Lover of Truth

What he is trying to say, I believe, is that God looks at the heart.  If a person believes that stealing a penny is a mortal sin and he steals a penny and dies unrepentant of that act he will go to Hell.  This is basic theology.  Were you aware of that?  Contrarily, if a person, through no fault of his own, thinks contraception is okay and commits that act without being sorry for it, he will not be damned for that sin.  Basic theology.  Where you aware of that?  This is the distinction when the above talking about objectively (contraception is a mortal sin) and subjectively (their conscience is clear and in good shape in the eyes of God as they are not condemned for thing that, through no fault of their own, they did not know was evil).

According to this, it would be better for everyone to be invincibly ignorant then. The less they know, the less they will be held accountable for!

So all the Novus Ordo faithful who believe that dressing immodestly is perfectly OK and that God "doesn't worry about such things", who believe they are doing the will of God with their guitar, clown, balloon, puppet, Hindu, bike, etc. etc. etc. "Mass", who believe it is the will of God that we should go "encounter" people of other religions and communicate with them religiously, who don't fast at all anymore during Lent, etc. etc. etc., all these people can actually still be members of the Church and in the state of grace because they simply "don't know and think its ok" and are simply following the orders of their Novus Ordo authorities?

According to this, there's no point in trying to convert anyone from the Novus Ordo, or ANY non-Catholic for that matter, for they ALL think they're "doing good".

Most of them certainly mean well. Most of them think they are doing the will of God.

Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate. Now if these infidels have no excuse, will there be any for a Catholic who had so many sacraments, so many sermons, so many aids at his disposal?

LoT, your post raises some interesting thoughts.

I know that one of the biggest reasons people have a problem with EENS comes from a bad conception of hell, thinking of it as a monolithic place, a single cauldron of fire in which someone who exercised natural virtue throughout their lives, a kind grandmother perhaps who sacrificed her entire life for her children, or a father who worked 20 hours a day and then died saving one of his children from death, etc.  In the warped idea of hell, these people end up sitting next to Joe Stalin and Judas Iscariot being tortured to the same degree.  But that's ABSOLUTELY FALSE.  Even one of the EENS definitions spells out that those in hell suffer to varying degrees, depending on their actual sins.

I believe that naturally good people suffer very little, if any, pain of sense in hell.  Some who may have lived extremely virtuous lives, from a natural perspective, are probably even quite happy or, at the very least, suffer no more than they might have in this world.  Perhaps we might find some native Americans in their "happy hunting ground".

We cannot question God's justice or fairness.  Only he knows why these people did not receive the grace of faith.  Perhaps they would have rejected it and merited greater unhappiness for all eternity and He spared them of this.  We believe that God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just.

Recall that faith is a GRACE that is owed to no one, and that God can never be considered unfair for withholding it from anyone.

Quote from: Ladislaus

LoT, your post raises some interesting thoughts.

I know that one of the biggest reasons people have a problem with EENS comes from a bad conception of hell, thinking of it as a monolithic place, a single cauldron of fire in which someone who exercised natural virtue throughout their lives, a kind grandmother perhaps who sacrificed her entire life for her children, or a father who worked 20 hours a day and then died saving one of his children from death, etc.  In the warped idea of hell, these people end up sitting next to Joe Stalin and Judas Iscariot being tortured to the same degree.  But that's ABSOLUTELY FALSE.  Even one of the EENS definitions spells out that those in hell suffer to varying degrees, depending on their actual sins.

I believe that naturally good people suffer very little, if any, pain of sense in hell.  Some who may have lived extremely virtuous lives, from a natural perspective, are probably even quite happy or, at the very least, suffer no more than they might have in this world.  Perhaps we might find some native Americans in their "happy hunting ground".

We cannot question God's justice or fairness.  Only he knows why these people did not receive the grace of faith.  Perhaps they would have rejected it and merited greater unhappiness for all eternity and He spared them of this.  We believe that God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just.

Recall that faith is a GRACE that is owed to no one, and that God can never be considered unfair for withholding it from anyone.

Is it all up to grace? Why do some people revel in those moronic "Pentecostal" abominations they call worship, and some people will never submit to that brutality, no matter how irreligious they may be? Why do some people revel clapping their hands and jumping and falling around and babbling and convulsing during those things, while other people never will?

I find those concerts they call "worship" one of the most detestable abominations on earth, and i just cannot understand how it is possible.

I believe that naturally good people suffer very little, if any, pain of sense in hell. Some who may have lived extremely virtuous lives, from a natural perspective, are probably even quite happy or, at the very least, suffer no more than they might have in this world. Perhaps we might find some native Americans in their "happy hunting ground".

Suffering in purgatory is greater than all suffering on earth. Such is the doctrine of tradition, supported by theological reasoning.

Tradition is expressed by St. Augustine: "That fire will be more painful than anything man can suffer in the present life."  St. Isidore speaks in the same sense. According to these testimonies and others similar to them, the least pain in purgatory surpasses the greatest sufferings of the present life.

St. Bonaventure speaks somewhat differently: "In the next life, by reason of the state of the souls there retained, the purifying purgatorial suffering will be, in its kind, more severe than the greatest trials on earth."