Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus VS Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter lukewberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CradleRC58 said:
You need proof to believe EENS ?
Click to expand...
I still do not see what point you are trying to make. Your reference to Canon II from Trent does not address EENS. Let’s not belabor this. Kindly respond to the OP’s topic and the many excellent rebuttals that have been offered.
 
Last edited:
lukewberg said:
Hello all,

[snip for space]

While I openly confess that I am no theologian, nor an expert in any respect when it comes to these matters, I still have the ability to read and understand what it is that I am reading. Within the documents of Vatican II I have read what seems to be an attempt to muffle or soften the quite harsh and direct teaching that outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. The claim of invincible ignorance has been suggested as a means to which pagans may attain salvation. Where I believe this to be in conflict, is when one considers the teachings of the council of Florence.

The council of Florence makes a case for the Baptism of Infants, and it goes as follows:
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum

Re: Invincible ignorance

Invincible ignorance ≠ simple ignorance.
We are all vastly ignorant of way more than we know. Are we required to know everything that is? No

So

What is invincible ignorance, who does it refer to, and why is it, if it is really applicable for a person. = escape from consequence?

Invincible ignorance is not an automatic excuse

EXAMPLE:

From the CCC
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

So

who does THAT describe or not describe?

Would someone with sub average intelligence, as in an IQ of 50 or below, have a chance at understanding even simple teachings? Probably not.

As for those not in that category, is our faith impossible to understand for the vast majority of people?

Invincible means no matter how hard one tries to know a subject, they can’t know it.

I would suggest , that refers to very few people who qualify
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
First of all baptism is mentioned in the OP. Fr Feeney has been mentioned in the thread as well.
 
Then I do not understand the quote you gave. The topic is also not apples.
 
Fr. Feeney’s interpretation of EENS was that water baptism in the Catholic church was necessary to avoid eternal damnation.
He did not believe in baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
CradleRC58 is posting purported proof for Fr. Feeney’s view.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily proof, but as a way of understanding how he came to his conclusion. On the method of baptism.

Myself, I don’t believe infants that die before they have been baptized won’t go to heaven. Nor do I believe those who are ignorant are damned.

I don’t reject desire for heaven or martyrdom as a means of salvation either, but I do stop short of saying they are forms of baptism. They are not Sacramental.

That said, I don’t think anyone such as Michael Dimond would consider me anything but a heretic. Anyone who isn’t a sede and feeneyite is a heretic according to him.
 
Last edited:
CradleRC58 said:
I don’t reject desire for heaven or martyrdom as a means of salvation either, but I do stop short of saying they are forms of baptism. They are not Sacramental.
Click to expand...
CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism , brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
 
CradleRC58 said:
They are not Sacramental.
Click to expand...
God is not bound by his Sacraments. If a person intending to be baptized dies, say, while en route to the baptism, God does not slap his knee and say, “Shoot, mate, you lost it,” and abandon that person to Hell. Per Catholic teaching, God would consider this person to have been a recipient of baptism of desire, and therefore baptised.
 
CradleRC58 said:
That said, I don’t think anyone such as Michael Dimond would consider me anything but a heretic. Anyone who isn’t a sede and feeneyite is a heretic according to him.
Click to expand...
I’m relieved that I have no idea who Michael Dimond is.
I know of Jamie Dimon but obviously not the same person.
 
I fortunately never landed on that webpage.

I avoid anything that looks sedevacantist or is fussing about purported heresies or lies of the Pope. I usually don’t hang around to see who’s running it, I just do not have time.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I fortunately never landed on that webpage.

I avoid anything that looks sedevacantist or is fussing about purported heresies or lies of the Pope. I usually don’t hang around to see who’s running it, I just do not have time.
Click to expand...
I had never heard of this guy until this thread. I just happened to google him and found the information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top