Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 45

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 41407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3163
  • Gender: Male
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #525 on: June 01, 2023, 02:05:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Just checking in, and see that despite the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:

    Please cite Church teaching on either:

    1) How is grace lost without grave sin

    or

    2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.

    I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14810
    • Reputation: +6113/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #526 on: June 01, 2023, 02:08:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 01, 2023, 02:05:38 PM
    Just checking in, and see the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, and 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:

    Please cite Church teaching on either:

    1) How is grace lost without grave sin

    or

    2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.

    I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).
    More Scripture for you to ignore....
    He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #527 on: June 01, 2023, 02:10:40 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on June 01, 2023, 02:08:11 PM
    More Scripture for you to ignore....
    He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

    No, just more of your Protestant private interpretations to ignore.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #528 on: June 01, 2023, 02:45:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 01, 2023, 02:10:40 PM
    No, just more of your Protestant private interpretations to ignore.
    I’ll give ladislaus a pass since he did at least go to seminary, but yeah, I honestly do sorta mentally filter out most other posters on here on this issue. Most of them do not even engage with what Justin martyr wrote. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but most of them do not even take the time or bother him. And most of them do indeed, blatantly engage in the private interpretation fest. I guess archbishop Lefevre was just an idiot who didn’t read the docuмents and some lay person online is going to set them right. Yeah right.

    I just also consider it a massive waste of time to argue with anyone who says this, so I instead decided to stick with just analyzing the issues. I saw that the main comment that quoted me completely missed the point.


    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12471
    • Reputation: +7921/-2450
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #529 on: June 01, 2023, 03:09:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
    We are required as Catholics to read Scripture literally, unless the Church tells us otherwise.  I believe Trent (and other papal docuмents on EENS) have quoted this passage in a literal sense.


    I've never heard of any saint or council using this phrase other than literal.
    Logged

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #530 on: June 01, 2023, 03:10:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 01, 2023, 02:05:38 PM
    Just checking in, and see that despite the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:

    Please cite Church teaching on either:

    1) How is grace lost without grave sin

    or

    2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.

    I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).


    How about you post something showing salvation can be had without the Catholic faith?

    That is what this boils down to.

    Anything else is a distraction.
    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2330
    • Reputation: +880/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #531 on: June 01, 2023, 03:19:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on June 01, 2023, 02:45:31 PM
    I’ll give ladislaus a pass since he did at least go to seminary, but yeah, I honestly do sorta mentally filter out most other posters on here on this issue. Most of them do not even engage with what Justin martyr wrote. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but most of them do not even take the time or bother him. And most of them do indeed, blatantly engage in the private interpretation fest. I guess archbishop Lefevre was just an idiot who didn’t read the docuмents and some lay person online is going to set them right. Yeah right.

    I just also consider it a massive waste of time to argue with anyone who says this, so I instead decided to stick with just analyzing the issues. I saw that the main comment that quoted me completely missed the point.

    If Justin Martyr said that one can be saved without faith in Christ after the preaching of the Gospel, he's wrong. Nothing to engage. He's just another father with an opinion that is contrary to other fathers - with a bit more weight, since that appears to matter to you - e.g., St. Augustine.

    The Athanasian Creed is infallible and states there cannot be salvation without the Catholic faith, which means conscious faith in Christ. Period.

    Now if some theologians after the adoption of the Creed speculate other, and the Church doesn't bother to condemn them, that's simply a prudential judgment of the Church, perhaps (likely in light of history) very negligent - they are a minority not to be taken seriously, other fish to fry, we've already spoken on this, etc.

    But the AC asserted eternal truth. Case closed. It didn't make waffles.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14810
    • Reputation: +6113/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #532 on: June 01, 2023, 03:27:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 01, 2023, 02:10:40 PM
    No, just more of your Protestant private interpretations to ignore.
    No, it's not a private interpretation, we read it as it is written, it is therefore a literal interpretation, which is to say that for Catholics, it means exactly what it says.

    So again, it is you who have it exactly backwards again because it is you with the Protestant interpretation by interpreting it to mean something other than what it says.

    Here's you doing the exact same thing you rightfully accuse Lad of doing all the time. Now feel free to prove with Church teaching that the Scripture I posted means something other than what it says, or admit that those who are baptized unbelievers forfeit grace by the sin of unbelief - just exactly as Our Lord, in no uncertain terms, said.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27794/-5166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #533 on: June 01, 2023, 04:16:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on June 01, 2023, 03:19:44 PM
    If Justin Martyr said that one can be saved without faith in Christ after the preaching of the Gospel, he's wrong. Nothing to engage. He's just another father with an opinion that is contrary to other fathers - with a bit more weight, since that appears to matter to you - e.g., St. Augustine.

    The Athanasian Creed is infallible and states there cannot be salvation without the Catholic faith, which means conscious faith in Christ. Period.

    Now if some theologians after the adoption of the Creed speculate other, and the Church doesn't bother to condemn them, that's simply a prudential judgment of the Church, perhaps (likely in light of history) very negligent - they are a minority not to be taken seriously, other fish to fry, we've already spoken on this, etc.

    But the AC asserted eternal truth. Case closed. It didn't make waffles.

    Agreed.  If my recollection is correct, however, St. Justin Marty was referring to the pre-Christian "noble pagan," the likes of Aristotle and others they might have had in mind, wondering how the possibility for salvation could have been available outside the narrow confines of Israel.

    In addition to the Athanasian Creed, I started a thread one time replete with citations from the Church Fathers who all said the same thing, the since the promulgation of the Gospel, salvation was not possible without explicit faith in Christ.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27794/-5166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #534 on: June 01, 2023, 04:27:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 01, 2023, 02:05:38 PM
    Just checking in, and see that despite the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:

    Please cite Church teaching on either:

    1) How is grace lost without grave sin

    or

    2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.

    I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).

    Throwing another one of your puerile trantrums, I see.

    Evidently you are incapable of following simple logic, and you have dodged the very simple question that's been put before you.  You refuse to answer it because it's absolutely fatal to your position.  You play this game constantly, where you beg the question and demand proof, and assume that your position is the correct one ... without having proved your own position.

    Where is your citation from the Magisterium that the grace infused in an infant at Baptism could only be lost by mortal sin even if the individual reaches the age of reason without the dispositions necessary for adults to be justified by the Sacrament?  You'll find none.  So from the direct Magisterial perspective, this is a wash.  But that doesn't stopping you from begging the question and then insisting that you're right unless someone can disprove it, even though you've never proven your own position.

    Father Mueller explained the situation very eloquently.  But you play these games and throw your usual tantrum.

    Of course, after going-on-double-digit requests you have still refused to answer this very basic question.  Let me formulate it so that you can just type yes or no.  I'll even put it in bold for you so you don't forget.

    If an infant is baptized, but is raised as an atheist, and through no fault of his own and having committed no mortal sin, arrives at the age of reason as an atheist, and then dies in that state, does he remain in a state of sanctifying grace and is saved?  YES OR NO?
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #535 on: June 01, 2023, 05:53:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on June 01, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
    Agreed.  If my recollection is correct, however, St. Justin Marty was referring to the pre-Christian "noble pagan," the likes of Aristotle and others they might have had in mind, wondering how the possibility for salvation could have been available outside the narrow confines of Israel.

    In addition to the Athanasian Creed, I started a thread one time replete with citations from the Church Fathers who all said the same thing, the since the promulgation of the Gospel, salvation was not possible without explicit faith in Christ.
    I DMed you about this awhile ago, but I think you underestimate how terrible and Protestant the average attitude of the people who argue for this position is.  Which I’ll be honest, is my biggest problem with it.  I just can’t go for “Archbishop Lefebvre couldn’t comprehend the plain language of insert obvious Catholic docuмent here.”
    now, from what I understand your argument is more complex than this. You do in fact make distinctions. I think you’ve granted before that someone who is externally part of the orthodox church, but has enough ignorance could be saved. Your main issue is the idea that it could apply to someone who wasn’t baptized whatsoever. you also have provided a lot more obscure details from the fathers, at least, according to your own interpretation of them, and because they are more obscure it’s plausible that someone like the Archbishop might have missed these. Furthermore, you actually did in fact, go to seminary, so I think your position deserves a little bit more wait at least. 
    but honestly, most of the people who take the same or a similar position, as you do, are literally just protestants just with more scriptures to privately interpret
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27794/-5166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #536 on: June 01, 2023, 07:49:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on June 01, 2023, 05:53:49 PM
    I DMed you about this awhile ago, but I think you underestimate how terrible and Protestant the average attitude of the people who argue for this position is.  Which I’ll be honest, is my biggest problem with it.  I just can’t go for “Archbishop Lefebvre couldn’t comprehend the plain language of insert obvious Catholic docuмent here.”
    now, from what I understand your argument is more complex than this. You do in fact make distinctions. I think you’ve granted before that someone who is externally part of the orthodox church, but has enough ignorance could be saved. Your main issue is the idea that it could apply to someone who wasn’t baptized whatsoever. you also have provided a lot more obscure details from the fathers, at least, according to your own interpretation of them, and because they are more obscure it’s plausible that someone like the Archbishop might have missed these. Furthermore, you actually did in fact, go to seminary, so I think your position deserves a little bit more wait at least.
    but honestly, most of the people who take the same or a similar position, as you do, are literally just protestants just with more scriptures to privately interpret

    I'm not sure that I understand parts of your post.  What are you referring to with Archbishop Lefebvre?

    If you mean his articulation of "Anonymous Christianity," Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly mistaken.  He reformulated by dogma no salvation outside the Church as no salvation except by means of the Church (or though the Church).  Archbishop Lefebvre was not a trained theologian by any stretch, and he probably was led astray by a professor of his that he considered otherwise orthodox and Traditional.  But EENS dogma had been under attack for hundreds of years by then, and almost everyone was infected with varying degrees of rejecting EENS dogma, and with subjectivism.  Karl Rahner stated, quite astutely, that the most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II was in fact revision of EENS dogma, and he expressed astonishment that the conservative faction of V2 Fathers didn't make a single peep about it.  But that's because they had already been sucked into the EENS revisionism that had been taking place for several hundred years.  Father Feeney rightly identified EENS-denial as THE core problem with the Church already in the late 1940s.  Despite the outward success and flourishing of the Church, with massive expansion of schools, new buildings, full seminaries and convents, there was something wrong.  Vatican II didn't happen in a vacuum where the state of Catholic theology was rock solid and sound one day and then immediately collapsed into Modernism the next day.

    I'm not sure what is so obscure about the Church Fathers.  They were absolutely clear that there could be no salvation without explicit knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity.  It wasn't until about the year 1500 when anyone doubted this.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12471
    • Reputation: +7921/-2450
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #537 on: June 01, 2023, 08:36:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    If you mean his articulation of "Anonymous Christianity," Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly mistaken.  He reformulated by dogma no salvation outside the Church as no salvation except by means of the Church (or though the Church).  Archbishop Lefebvre was not a trained theologian by any stretch, and he probably was led astray by a professor of his that he considered otherwise orthodox and Traditional.
    Right.  The modern notion of EENS is very ambiguous and subjective.  Contrast that to St Augustine, St Thomas, the Church Fathers and even many theologians of the 1800/1900s.  The great archbishop George Hay (d 1811) is staunchly pro-EENS in the orthodox and strict sense.  In his book "The Sincere Christian" he discusses this dogma as it is found in Scripture.


    Quote
    Father Feeney rightly identified EENS-denial as THE core problem with the Church already in the late 1940s.
    Right, and Fr Feeney was living in America.  The corruption and liberalism in Europe and France (where +ABL grew up) was far worse than America in those days.  The most liberal clerics at V2 were from France and Germany.


    Let's not pretend that +ABL was somehow immune from liberalism; he was only human.  And let's not pretend that the sspx, even in the early days of the 1970s, didn't take heat for their watered-down beliefs concerning EENS.  They took a lot of heat.

    Take all the 'hot button' issues of Traditionalism today (EENS/BOD, Sedevacantism, R&R, Jurisdiction, etc) and now imagine 50 years ago, when Traditionalism was just starting in the 70s.  In those days, the 'hot button' issues were the new mass, V2, and EENS/BOD. 

    The controversy/debate over EENS/BOD has never gone away; it's been around LONG before V2 and now, afterwards.  The reason is because EENS is so important to the Faith and this doctrine has been violently attacked by satan ever since God allowed the Church to enter the 5th age, with the dawn of Protestantism in 1517.  The Council of Trent did a great job defending this doctrine in the late 1500s, but since then, it's been all downhill...

    But the doctrine, since it's Divine Truth, won't go away.  Just as many disciples walked away from Christ's doctrine of the Eucharist in John 6 (calling it "difficult"), so many catholics try to widen the "narrow road" to heaven, calling it "too harsh".
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #538 on: June 01, 2023, 09:20:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I guess I’m just a little skeptical that Karl rahner understood the fathers better than Lefebvre did 
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12471
    • Reputation: +7921/-2450
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #539 on: June 01, 2023, 09:34:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    I guess I’m just a little skeptical that Karl rahner understood the fathers better than Lefebvre did 
    The proof is that Karl Rahner was undoubtedly, unabashedly and proudly a Modernist.  If he had found even one Church Father who agreed with his V2-mindset, he would've exploited that quote to the nth degree.  It would've been repeated by every Modernist til they were blue in the face.  But they never found anything...
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 45
    « previous next »