Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance (Read 5919 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2020, 05:11:43 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 13, 2020, 03:56:26 PM

Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:

St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.

My point wasn't that strictest view = not nuanced per se. My critique was of the particular herneneutic being used.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2020, 05:19:59 AM »

Quote from: poche on February 13, 2020, 10:54:03 PM

From the Baltimore Catechism;

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
1.(1) Has been validly baptized;
2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the CatholicChurch to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church

Baltimore isn't absolutely infallible though, and the strictest EENS people would say that it is wrong in the light of Florence.

My issue at the end of the day is that I can't believe that the writers of baltimore, the catechism of St Pius X, Mueller Catechism (allows BOD by "desiring to do all that God has required for salvation") all the clergy, whether hermeneutic of continuity *or* trad, are all just idiots who can't read the plain words of Florence, yet that is the logical conclusion of the *way* guys like Stubborn and Last Tradhican (lol that name is fitting here :D ) argue for a strict view of EENS.

I actually, personally, have little interest in the "Feeneyism is heresy" line of reasoning, I suspect that Feeneyites who take their position in good faith will be shown mercy if they are wrong, just as I suspect non Feeneyites will be shown mercy if they are wrong under the same circuмstances.

I'm actually not even *that* perturbed by the idea that they might be *right* (though I'm nearly certain Trent is teaching BOD as a possibility *at least* for the catechumen) as to the final conclusion.

My bigger issue is the argument. Like, I'm admittedly a new convert. And apparently I'm supposed to *absolutely* believe my own interpretation of Florence over what all the clergy say. Like that, by itself, is a huge stretch.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2020, 05:22:44 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 13, 2020, 03:56:26 PM

Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:

St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.

Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.

I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD. If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.

And St. Francis Xavier may not have believed that, but IDK if that's what he's addressing here, as I'll explain.

However, assuming a given Japanese soul was *not* saved (and that *is* the presumption, their deaths having *appeared* to occur outside the Church), there is nothing that can be done for them, nothing that can change their fate.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** February 14, 2020, 05:34:53 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 13, 2020, 02:53:08 PM

Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lol

It is funny how the literal meaning is *always* abandoned whenever that meaning is interpreted. What gets me, is the ones who abandon the meaning by interpreting it, believe the opposite, that the literal meaning is an interpretation.

"One Lord, One faith, one baptism" does not mean what it says.
"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins" does not mean what it says.
John 3:5 does not mean what it says.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" does not mean what it says.
As such, "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" does not at all mean what it says.

"Sacred dogmas must be understood as the Church understands them" has become the dogma which demands that everyone have their own interpretation of dogma, and for *that*, you cannot escape applying prot interpretive principles to dogma.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #39 on:** February 14, 2020, 08:42:58 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 14, 2020, 05:22:44 AM

Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.

I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD. If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.

That's your individual interpretation mixing a bunch of teachers and coming up with an interpretation according to your own desires.
1) Your concoction is not salvation by BOD, it is salvation by implicit faith by belief in a God that rewards for the invincible ignorant.
2) And you add your own twist that God would "illuminate to the truth of the Catholic faith after their deaths"

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance (Read 5919 times)

ByzCat3000

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

ByzCat3000

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

ByzCat3000

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

Stubborn

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

Last Tradhican

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance