Fr. Benedict Groeschel on EENS

[Peter_J]

Did any of you happen to watch Fr. Groeschel’s program on EWTN yesterday? I thought he gave an excellent commentary on Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus (“No Salvation Outside of the Church”).

Also, does anyone know the days and times that it will be shown again? I know one is Saturday at 5 PM Eastern.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Did any of you happen to watch Fr. Groeschel’s program on EWTN yesterday? I thought he gave an excellent commentary on Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus (“No Salvation Outside of the Church”).

Also, does anyone know the days and times that it will be shown again? I know one is Saturday at 5 PM Eastern.

Any idea if this will be posted on the EWTN website?

 

[Capulilo]

This episode already replayed this morning at 6:00 and will air again as you said on Saturday. It is available online at the EWTN website though. I think you can listen online and maybe even download to your ipod.
I am so appreciative of Fr. Groeschel’s ministry. Lord bless him.
Ann

 

[Peter_J]

This episode already replayed this morning at 6:00 and will air again as you said on Saturday. It is available online at the EWTN website though. I think you can listen online and maybe even download to your ipod.
I am so appreciative of Fr. Groeschel’s ministry. Lord bless him.
Ann

Thanks Capulilo.

BTW, for anyone who’s interested in the EENS part but doesn’t have time to listen to the whole talk, it’s about 40 minutes into the program.

 

[Peter_J]

Fr. Benedict Groeschel on EENS

Today, 5 PM Eastern, on EWTN. (Take good notes. There may be a quiz later.)

 

[dcana]

I can’t believe I’m saying this, as I respect Fr. Groeschel so much - he is more wise and knowledgeable than I’ll probably ever be - but I have to disagree with him on this point. I watched the segment in question from the show and he kind of shrugged it off as if to say, “Well, that was not an infallible teaching so we don’t have to believe that anymore.” This is not correct. It has been approved by popes and councils through the centuries, including Vatican II. The question is how the doctrine is to be rightly understood. Here are the relevant passages in the Cathecism:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (emphasis mine)

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

See also this great article concerning EENS on the Catholic Answers web site:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

God Bless

 

[Non_Serviam]

It seems to me Groeschel put almost as much weight on Boniface’s thoughts on the Franciscans in evaluating his writing as he did on any historical evidence.

Still seems like a bit of revisionist whitewash in light of the clear fact that Pius XII had no qualms about using Unum Sanctam as a key reference in his encyclical and the CDF did likewise in their response to Feeneyism.

 

[JaMc]

It seems to me Groeschel put almost as much weight on Boniface’s thoughts on the Franciscans in evaluating his writing as he did on any historical evidence.

I saw this episode, and noticed that as well. Basically, he takes Boniface VIII’s *non-*infallible negative opinions regarding the Franciscans, and uses it to dismiss everything from his papacy. Generally, EENS, while watered down, is not outright denied (Fr. Corapi does a good job of presenting the post V-II interpretation). I generally like Fr. Groeschel, but I think he’s wrong on this one.

 

[Hesychios]

I saw this episode, and noticed that as well. Basically, he takes Boniface VIII’s *non-*infallible negative opinions regarding the Franciscans, and uses it to dismiss everything from his papacy. Generally, EENS, while watered down, is not outright denied (Fr. Corapi does a good job of presenting the post V-II interpretation). I generally like Fr. Groeschel, but I think he’s wrong on this one.

I realize that Father Groeschel comes out of the Franciscan tradition, so perhaps that is why he focused on it.

But is that all he talked about?

Pope Boniface VIII was a real monster from the deep, a cruel avaricious animal. Yes, he was a man of his times but actually one of the worst of his times. There is plenty enough about him to discredit everything he said or did without even mentioning the Franciscans by name (as if that were possible, Franciscans were probably frequently in his way just because they were popular and numerous in central Italy).

 

[JaMc]

I realize that Father Groeschel comes out of the Franciscan tradition, so perhaps that is why he focused on it.

But is that all he talked about?

Pope Boniface VIII was a real monster from the deep, a cruel avaricious animal. Yes, he was a man of his times but actually one of the worst of his times. There is plenty enough about him to discredit everything he said or did without even mentioning the Franciscans by name (as if that were possible, Franciscans were probably frequently in his way just because they were popular and numerous in central Italy).

Of course, there were many Popes who were highly corrupt and violent, especially during the medieval period, and who certainly did not behave in a manner becoming their office (one infamous incident, I forget the name of the Pope who convened it, was the “Cadaver Synod,” where the Pope exhumed his predecessor, put him on trial, and excommunicated him). The Pope is not infallible in every aspect, and, certainly, some very bad men, i.e., corruptable human beings, have held the office.

However, that does not change the fact that, when speaking on matters of faith, under all of the criteria set forth at Vatican I, the Pope is infallible. Even Boniface VIII, the Borgia popes, etc. While someone better versed in Canon Law than I could weigh in on this, I believe there is sufficient evidence that EENS meets all of the criteria for an infallible teaching.

 

[redrosetea]

I think someday he will be a canonized saint…I just love him

 

[Hesychios]

Of course, there were many Popes who were highly corrupt and violent, especially during the medieval period, and who certainly did not behave in a manner becoming their office (one infamous incident, I forget the name of the Pope who convened it, was the “Cadaver Synod,” where the Pope exhumed his predecessor, put him on trial, and excommunicated him). The Pope is not infallible in every aspect, and, certainly, some very bad men, i.e., corruptable human beings, have held the office.

However, that does not change the fact that, when speaking on matters of faith, under all of the criteria set forth at Vatican I, the Pope is infallible. Even Boniface VIII, the Borgia popes, etc. While someone better versed in Canon Law than I could weigh in on this, I believe there is sufficient evidence that EENS meets all of the criteria for an infallible teaching.

Then you would say Father Feeney was right?

On another note, what people tend to overlook is that Unam Sanctum was a political document, directed at one specific person. The political argument presented has been completely repudiated, even by Rome.

 

[JaMc]

Then you would say Father Feeney was right?

Not at all. I believe in baptism by blood and desire, and I accept that, if the form is correct, Protestant baptisms can be valid. I also recognize the mens rea requirement for mortal sin, and believe that someone who is innocently ignorant, but would accept the Church if he knew of her and her teachings, can receive salvation. Fr. Feeney went completely off the deep end, and I do not think even (most of) the folks over here believe he was right.

That being said, if one completely rejects EENS, it gets a little close to the line of Indifferentism. Given the scriptural references to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Apostolic Succession, EENS is perfectly defensible from a theological standpoint. Tempered with Baptism by Desire and the mercy of God, it is possible to accept it, without being a Feeneyite.

 

[Peter_J]

I realize that Father Groeschel comes out of the Franciscan tradition, so perhaps that is why he focused on it.

But is that all he talked about?

Pope Boniface VIII was a real monster from the deep, a cruel avaricious animal. Yes, he was a man of his times but actually one of the worst of his times. There is plenty enough about him to discredit everything he said or did without even mentioning the Franciscans by name (as if that were possible, Franciscans were probably frequently in his way just because they were popular and numerous in central Italy).

You have to understand the style of the show. I don’t think Fr. Groeschel was trying to build a case against Pope Boniface VIII. Maybe just trying to make it clear that he wasn’t some kind of “superstar pope”. (In any case, I find it hard to imagine any show on EWTN calling Boniface “a real monster from the deep, a cruel avaricious animal”. But that’s just me. )

Plus, the mention of Boniface was part of the answer (albeit a rather extensive answer) to a letter. (I probably should have made that clear, so it didn’t sound like EENS was specifically part of the episode’s theme.)

As part of said answer, he also mentioned how Pope Pius XI took the Catholic Church out of the ecumenical movement, and contrasted this with the highly-ecumenical attitude of the current Pope.

 

[Hesychios]

You have to understand the style of the show. I don’t think Fr. Groeschel was trying to build a case against Pope Boniface VIII. Maybe just trying to make it clear that he wasn’t some kind of “superstar pope”. (In any case, I find it hard to imagine any show on EWTN calling Boniface “a real monster from the deep, a cruel avaricious animal”. But that’s just me. )

Plus, the mention of Boniface was part of the answer (albeit a rather extensive answer) to a letter. (I probably should have made that clear, so it didn’t sound like EENS was specifically part of the episode’s theme.)

As part of said answer, he also mentioned how Pope Pius XI took the Catholic Church out of the ecumenical movement, and contrasted this with the highly-ecumenical attitude of the current Pope.

OK, that makes sense.