Salvation & Hope

[MTD]

With this I agree and it is in accord with the CCC and V-II’s L.G. :clapping:

You are not consistent, however. Previously, you indicated that one of those innocents who observe the natural law (etc.) must come to faith in Christ Jesus, and it would be granted somehow before they die. That assumption is not even taught by Pius IX in the document you cited.

Read the part about God’s divine light and grace enabling these “innocents” to live honest lives. The CCC teaches us about actual graces which all men receive apart from sacramental sanctifying grace. We are exceedingly privileged as His own children to have access to the latter through the Catholic Church; whereas, the natural man in invincible ignorance lives solely by the actual grace of divine light. Our eternal reward will be much different than those who walk in the light of actual graces.

The light they will receive is the light of supernatural faith, and the grace they will receive is sanctifying grace. It is de fide that no one can be saved without supernatural faith. And it is de fide that no one can be saved without sanctifying grace. To deny either or both of these two doctrines is heresy.

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

Why do you think I was saying or implying that their free will was denied? I am missing your point completely.

Gorman

---

gorman64—as I said prior—I was not sure what was meant by the wording. That is why I asked you–and you clarified.

 

[gorman64]

I think we are thinking of two different questions.

Your arguing a person who has no faith (whether he is guilty or not) cannot be saved.

I was arguing that if a person doesnt make it to Heaven they are guilty of having no faith. Under your proposal a man could somehow not be guilty and yet not be saved (the only answer to this would be because God never wanted him saved, but that would contradict Church teaching).

If anyone has at least the desire means they have cooperated with grace and cannot be guilty.

Dear Cathoilic Dude:

I was arguing that if a person doesnt make it to Heaven they are guilty of having no faith.

Are you sure you want to argue this?

Gorman

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dear Cathoilic Dude:
Are you sure you want to argue this?
Gorman

I dont see anything wrong with it.
It essentially means God didnt predestine anyone to hell.

 

[Joysong]

Maria,

The light they will receive is the light of supernatural faith, and the grace they will receive is sanctifying grace. It is de fide that no one can be saved without supernatural faith. And it is de fide that no one can be saved without sanctifying grace. To deny either or both of these two doctrines is heresy.

Impossible. Sanctifying grace is only received through the sacraments, which an innocent is not receiving and may never do so during their lifetime.

I believe we are at an impasse. I have invited you to obtain counsel from higher Church Authority, but since you feel you already possess fullness of truth and have no need of it, I leave you to your own logic. God bless you.

 

[Joysong]

Well whaddya know! My last ditch search came up with gold in EWTN’s Library.

St_Benedict very early in the thread alluded to Fr. Feeney, but I had little knowledge of how dangerous his EENS had become. These are a few enlightening excerpts that answered my question “Why is that?” of a few posts ago, when I wondered why only traditionists were clinging so staunchly to this doctrine.

Fr. Feeney and his followers in “the Boston heresy,” as it came to be known, insisted that theirs was the only orthodox interpretation of the extra ecclesiam doctrine. To aid their cause, they enlisted the help of several magisterial texts from primarily medieval popes and councils. These, like the Patristic texts, merit some examination, not only because of their bearing on the case at hand, but because they offer an example of how even those people ostensibly concerned with orthodoxy can be led astray by the private interpretation of ecclesial texts.

By far the most favorite conciliar quote of the Feeneyites, however, comes from the Council of Florence.

In other words, the magisterial texts used by Fr. Feeney and his followers can only be interpreted “in context” and in the light of other, equally authoritative Magisterial teachings not only in order to avoid confusion or charges that the Church has changed her teaching, but because it is only in harmony with the Magisterium of today that magisterial texts of yesterday may be rightly understood.

It is interesting to note that the footnote for this very paragraph from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium] refers to , the protocol condemning the Boston heresy, which certainly lays to rest the popular claim among contemporary Feeneyites that the Protocol was simply a letter from one church bureaucrat to another with no particular force behind it.

The ironic nature of the errors of Fr. Feeney, arch-conservative and baiter of non-Catholics, is that his use of the theory of private interpretation is essentially very similar to that of the heresiarch Martin Luther’s. But instead of insisting on private interpretation of Scripture, Fr. Feeney seemed to be insisting on private interpretation of Magisterial documents.

Indeed, in the last couple of years, Feeneyism has enjoyed a resurgence of sorts. This is true especially among at least some of the followers of excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, whose case mirrors that of Fr. Feeney in some uncanny ways.

Both Feeney and Lefebvre gathered around themselves counselors who were, in retrospect, at least as crafty and cunning as their mentors had been in their worst moments. Although Matatics and Trinchard are both Lefebvrist sympathizers, the resurgence of the Boston heresy is not limited to a few of the followers of Marcel Lefebvre. In fact, many traditionalists are vociferous in their denunciations of the Boston heresy

There you have it folks. Are we debating with Feeneyists or innocent Catholics who have been led astray by this false doctrine? May God deliver us all!

 

[gorman64]

Catholic Dude:

I was arguing that if a person doesnt make it to Heaven they are guilty of having no faith.

I dont see anything wrong with it.
It essentially means God didnt predestine anyone to hell.

Dear Catholic Dude:

Are you saying that one who has supernatural faith and is not outside the Church is saved and cannot lose Heaven by a single mortal sin? Without repentance, are these not lost as well?

1. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi

Gorman

 

[MTD]

Impossible. Sanctifying grace is only received through the sacraments, which an innocent is not receiving and may never do so during their lifetime.

Do you deny that “Baptism of Blood” and “Baptism of Desire,” which are not sacraments, have the same effect as the sacrament of Baptism in regards to removing Original Sin?

Do you deny that an act of perfect contrition, which is not a sacrament, has the same effect as the sacrament of Penance in regards to restoring someone to sanctifying grace after having lost it through mortal sin?

If not, then I don’t see how you can say sanctifying grace is only received through the sacraments.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Joysong:

Well whaddya know! My last ditch search came up with gold in EWTN’s Library.

St_Benedict very early in the thread alluded to Fr. Feeney, but I had little knowledge of how dangerous his EENS had become. These are a few enlightening excerpts that answered my question “Why is that?” of a few posts ago, when I wondered why only traditionists were clinging so staunchly to this doctrine.

There you have it folks. Are we debating with Feeneyists or innocent Catholics who have been led astray by this false doctrine? May God deliver us all!

Dear Joysong:

You really don’t know what you’re talking about here.

I wondered why only traditionists were clinging so staunchly to this doctrine.

Do you understand that this doctrine is a defined dogma…it is de fide. The denial of de fide doctrine is heresy.

What you call a “false doctrine” is a dogma of the Church. If you understood just how wrong you are (I don’t think you do) you’d be a heretic and outside the Church where there is no salvation.

You’ve shown everyone quite clearly that you do not have a sufficient grasp of this subject. Your comments are an assault on Holy Mother Church. No one should listen to you.

May God deliver you from your ignorance.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[Walking_Home]

Well whaddya know! My last ditch search came up with gold in EWTN’s Library.

St_Benedict very early in the thread alluded to Fr. Feeney, but I had little knowledge of how dangerous his EENS had become. These are a few enlightening excerpts that answered my question “Why is that?” of a few posts ago, when I wondered why only traditionists were clinging so staunchly to this doctrine.

There you have it folks. Are we debating with Feeneyists or innocent Catholics who have been led astray by this false doctrine? May God deliver us all!

---

Who here has denied baptism by blood or by desire. I see–you are still up to your old tricks.

 

[Genesis315]

Ven. Pius IX

Just curious, do you accept his beatification? He is now appropriately titled Blessed Pius IX.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Do you deny that “Baptism of Blood” and “Baptism of Desire,” which are not sacraments, have the same effect as the sacrament of Baptism in regards to removing Original Sin?

Do you deny that an act of perfect contrition, which is not a sacrament, has the same effect as the sacrament of Penance in regards to restoring someone to sanctifying grace after having lost it through mortal sin?

If not, then I don’t see how you can say sanctifying grace is only received through the sacraments.

Maria

I agree with you, Maria. It is an error to think that sanctifying grace, which is required for eternal salvation, is not imparted by God through baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

 

[Genesis315]

The desire for Baptism doesn’t have *exactly *the same effect as Baptism:

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) Moral Theology - (Bk. 6): “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of wind’ ‘flaminis’] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ‘flamen’]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved *‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.’” *

 

[Joysong]

Gorman:

What you call a “false doctrine” is a dogma of the Church. If you understood just how wrong you are (I don’t think you do) you’d be a heretic and outside the Church where there is no salvation

What I call a false doctrine is the “Boston heresy” for which Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by the Church, and to which many on this forum seem to be advocating, albeit innocently. Did you read the entire article on EWTN’s website? It is very explanatory.
There has been sufficient posts, links, and other threads that fully address the topic of EENS, both correctly and incorrectly. With a final caveat, I urge any who think they understand this difficult teaching to check with the Church and not believe everything they read in these threads.

St. Paul, in his utter humility even though he learned his doctrine directly from Christ, went in counsel to Jerusalem to make sure he was on the right track, “lest he be found preaching in vain.” [Gal. 2:1-5] I would expect the same humility of all of us, that we always check with the Church as the final authority, rather than be swayed by every tidbit that comes our way through the internet.

 

[gorman64]

Genesis315:

Just curious, do you accept his beatification? He is now appropriately titled Blessed Pius IX.

Genesis315;

I don’t think you’re curious at all …I’ll just call him Ven. Pius IX until we’re sure that he is Bl. Pius IX.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Joysong:

What I call a false doctrine is the “Boston heresy” for which Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by the Church, and to which many on this forum seem to be advocating, albeit innocently. Did you read the entire article on EWTN’s website? It is very explanatory.

Yes, I read it. I know much more about the topic than you do…which wouldn’t take all that much since you’ve indicated that you just came across this article today.

I am not a follower of the St. Benedict Center. They are not traditionalists and are accepted by the Conciliar Church. I believe their errors are tolerated by the Conciliar establishment as long as they don’t try to proselytize.

You can try to tar me (and others) with this label…but it won’t stick. Your position is the one of unorthodoxy…not mine.

Gorman

 

[Genesis315]

Genesis315;

I don’t think you’re curious at all …I’ll just call him Ven. Pius IX until we’re sure that he is Bl. Pius IX.

Gorman

Actually I was. Usually a traditional person would want to give the proper honor to whom honor is due–especially to such a staunch defender of the faith. Usually it’s the liberals/modernists who hate the fact that he was beatified… I remember the “American Catholic” made a big deal over the fact that beatifications aren’t necessarily infallible and therefore one didn’t have to believe he was experiencing the beatific vision.

 

[MTD]

The desire for Baptism doesn’t have *exactly *the same effect as Baptism:

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) Moral Theology - (Bk. 6): “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of wind’ ‘flaminis’] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ‘flamen’]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved *‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.’” *

Yes, it is true that Baptism of Desire doesn’t remit all temporal punishment, but it does confer sanctifying grace. And that is all I meant to say; I was only refuting the erroneous statement of Joysong that sanctifying grace is only received through the sacraments.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Walking_Home:

gorman64—as I said prior—I was not sure what was meant by the wording. That is why I asked you–and you clarified.

Walking Home:

Well, then…I’m sorry about that…I guess I was missing your point.

Gorman

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dear Catholic Dude:

Are you saying that one who has supernatural faith and is not outside the Church is saved and cannot lose Heaven by a single mortal sin? Without repentance, are these not lost as well?
Gorman

They can lose Heaven through mortal sin.

You said:“a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved”

I said: " If anyone has at least the desire means they have cooperated with grace and cannot be guilty." This includes avoidance/repentance of sin.

What I dont understand is how from what you said a person can NOT be guilty for having no faith and YET NOT be saved.