FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why do so many Catholics drop the ball when it comes to EENS?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(08-02-2009, 04:10 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, the EENS issue should be one of the later issues you address. First, you have to convince them that the Catholic Church is the True Chuch; otherwise, they will just laugh at us like we laugh at the Fundy-gelical Protestants. While going up to people and telling people they will most likely burn in Hell for all eternity if they do not become Catholic as a certain macabre joy and appeal to it, it is probably not going to lead people to the Church?

Is the goal to be obnoxious or to bring them to the Church?

I understand what you mean but the problem my OP is referring to is when some Catholics are asked whether or not EENS is true by non-Catholics. Many of them pussyfoot around it and start making up excuses to exonerate the non-Catholics from having to join The Church. This is hardly in keeping with our duty to evangelize and bring others into the faith. Answering the question in the affirmative is in fact a stepping stone to the discussion which follows: "Why is The Church necessary for salvation?"

Sometimes the discussion takes different routes, depending with whom you are talking with.


Valz
(08-02-2009, 04:55 PM)Valz Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-02-2009, 04:10 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, the EENS issue should be one of the later issues you address. First, you have to convince them that the Catholic Church is the True Chuch; otherwise, they will just laugh at us like we laugh at the Fundy-gelical Protestants. While going up to people and telling people they will most likely burn in Hell for all eternity if they do not become Catholic as a certain macabre joy and appeal to it, it is probably not going to lead people to the Church?

Is the goal to be obnoxious or to bring them to the Church?

I understand what you mean but the problem my OP is referring to is when some Catholics are asked whether or not EENS is true by non-Catholics. Many of them pussyfoot around it and start making up excuses to exonerate the non-Catholics from having to join The Church. This is hardly in keeping with our duty to evangelize and bring others into the faith. Answering the question in the affirmative is in fact a stepping stone to the discussion which follows: "Why is The Church necessary for salvation?"

Sometimes the discussion takes different routes, depending with whom you are talking with.


Valz

But explaining it well is difficult. Look at my previous posts and others. It is easy to say 'only use what Councils and Popes have said', but then it gets muddled because there is the Catechism, which is what most people see as Church teaching. It will make the Church sound schizo if you say something about, "Well, the Council of Trent and several Pre-Tridentine Popes said 'X', but the current Catechism says 'Y' and if you read some of the writing of Pope Pius X and the more recent Popes, like Paul VI and John Paul II, they said 'Z'."
(08-02-2009, 02:22 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]Because it is a difficult subject to discuss without entering into personal opinions. On one side, you have the Feeneyites who believe if you are not in full communion with the Pope, you're going to Hell. On the other side, you have those who state that as long as the person is seeking Truth, then that is what counts (this was the argument put forth by Jimmy Akin). Even taking into account some of the harsh-sounding statements by earlier (i.e. Middle Ages/Pre-Protestant Reformation) Popes about no hope of Salvation, regardless of works, if you are not part of the Catholic Church, one then has to ask: what does it mean to be part of the Catholic Church?

Obviously, there are those who are formal members of the Church: Baptized, Confirmed and in full-communion with the Pope. What about Protestants who are validly Baptized? Are they not imperfectly connected to the Catholic Church? Then there is the "Baptism of Desire" issue. Fr. Feeney took a strong stand of rejecting that idea, but that is his opinion, not Catholic doctrine and the doctrine seems fairly vague to being with. Then "invincible ignorance" enters into play. Obviously, most people probably know the Catholic Church exists, but do they know it is the True Church founded by Christ? What does it mean to "know" in this case? Is it just they need to have heard someone tell them that the CC is the True Church or do they actually, at some level, have been convinced of this fact, yet they obstinately refuse or they are so stubbornly Anti-Catholic that their hatred for Catholicism supersedes their personal search for Truth.

Frankly, EENS is not an easy topic because only God knows who is truly a part of His Church. We can know who is formally Catholic (Baptized, Confirmed, etc.), but only God knows the state of a man's soul and whether they are somehow connected to His Church even if that connection is invisible to us. Thus, perhaps the best summarization to make is:

1) The Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ
2) Anyone outside the Church cannot be Saved, but in the end, only God knows who is part of His Church

K.I.S.S....

First, like it or not, remember that EENS is a defined dogma......personally, I don't care for it much, but it is what it is. Since various Catechisms contradict the defined dogma, one MUST agree that it is the Catechism that is in error - there is no choice in this matter.

It is a difficult subject, mainly because of a thing called "Human Respect Weakness".

Invincible Ignorance has nothing to do with Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc. It has everything to do with being completely incapable of learning anything - as in a brain damaged individual for example.
Quote:First, like it or not, remember that EENS is a defined dogma......personally, I don't care for it much, but it is what it is. Since various Catechisms contradict the defined dogma, one MUST agree that it is the Catechism that is in error - there is no choice in this matter.

If that is correct, how does one properly explain that well?
I have had deep religious discussions with very pious and devoted Mormons.  Very often I found myself deliberately highlighting all of the apparent similarities between the LDS and the RCC.  The first time I did this, however, one of the Mormons said that, while he didn't want to be confrontational, both of our churches could not be the True Church.  Then he challenged me to read the Book of Mormon and ask God to reveal to me if it is truly what it claims to be.  Later, while thinking back on our discussion, I was struck by how much I wanted it both ways, by how much I wanted their church to be true.  I was stunned that I could think this way while being fully certain that mine was the True Church and theirs was some kind of lie.  Furthermore, I find myself not wanting to convert my neighbors to the Faith, thinking it would bring disaster to their lives which seem so good and wholesome.  Yet, simultaneously I REALLY would like them to be Catholic because I KNOW their religion is false.  Yet I also have no fear for their salvation... I guess I just want them to be Catholic because being Catholic is like one of the highest goods or something.
it was the utter contempt for fine drink that told me the mormons were nothing but a load o rubish.
also not eating nuts is just weird.
(08-02-2009, 05:10 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:First, like it or not, remember that EENS is a defined dogma......personally, I don't care for it much, but it is what it is. Since various Catechisms contradict the defined dogma, one MUST agree that it is the Catechism that is in error - there is no choice in this matter.

If that is correct, how does one properly explain that well?

Well, first, whoever chooses to change it's meaning, does so knowingly because it says what it says by design - infallibly. To believe otherwise says the pope who declared the dogma to the whole world did not mean what he said - crazy to even consider such a thing.

How to explain that church books, teachings, catechisms etc. have been adulterated, infiltrated and manipulated to help water down / destroy the faith and has been going on at least since the invention of the printing press- good luck.      
Quote:How to explain that church books, teachings, catechisms etc. have been adulterated, infiltrated and manipulated to help water down / destroy the faith and has been going on at least since the invention of the printing press- good luck.

But the Catechism is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you tell a non-Catholic that the Catechism is wrong, how do you think they will respond?
(08-02-2009, 05:29 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:How to explain that church books, teachings, catechisms etc. have been adulterated, infiltrated and manipulated to help water down / destroy the faith and has been going on at least since the invention of the printing press- good luck.

But the Catechism is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you tell a non-Catholic that the Catechism is wrong, how do you think they will respond?

They'll probably look at you like you're nuts lol.

Don't worry, you get used to it after a while.  :)






(08-02-2009, 05:21 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]it was the utter contempt for fine drink that told me the mormons were nothing but a load o rubish.
also not eating nuts is just weird.

You're kidding.  They don't eat nuts...? ???
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14