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
For those observing this debate, imagine this going on in 1930 - 1960, and you can see how the horror of Vat. II came about.  Consider the following (I am not accusing my very capable debating opponent of any of this) that Fr. Feeney surely saw coming:

1.  If a man can be saved without baptism, why bother?  In fact, if you instruct the savage in the right ways, you may end up condemning them to hell, where before they would have been saved.

2.  If a man can be saved without baptism, then what is it for?  Oh, it is an initiation ceremony into the Catholic Church (The Catholic church subsists in the Church of Christ is where this leads).

3.  Why did Christ have to die?  He didn't, He was murdered by the Romans.  But He forgave them, so they were all saved too.

4.  Since Christ didn't have to die, we really don't need the Mass to propitiate God's wrath.  Why would we need that?

5.  If Jesus had come down from the cross, then the Jews would have believed.  So they must be saved anyway, otherwise Jesus was a mean God since He could have saved them with a miracle.  Since I know that Jesus is all merciful, then the Jews were obviously saved, or else Jesus would have done something.

6.  Heck, everyone is saved.

7.  Since Mass is not needed, the Eucharist is really just Jesus present in some special way in the bread and wine.  So we can just make it a communal meal to unite us.  We Are Church.  Why insist on outdated medieval legends if it will turn off our separated brethren.

Note, all of this comes once you deny EENS and the related topic of salvation through grace.  Fr. Feeney saw this coming.
Didi Wrote:There is no contradiction. If you believe God will provide the means of salvation to everyone who desires it and if such a person dies without said requirements then we can only conclude that they did not truly want it.

Suppose someone desires salvation, and yet God knows if he is baptized, he will betray his baptismal oaths and suffer the fires of hell, but if He leaves him in his current state, he will be in Limbo.  I won't presume to say how God would decide this, but it is somewhat logical that He may leave him in his present state.
I'd rather not get into that: that seems like it may be treading on dangerous grounds....if we followed that train of thought why did God make anyone knowing they'll go to hell? Why not only make people He knows are going to heaven? See the problem there? We have no need to go into such speculation to defend the dogmas of the Church.
Agreed.  The Church declared these things a Mystery.  I will point out that I inserted the caveat that I would not presume how God would decide this in my post.

NEVER judge God, unless you are a complete idiot.
(08-07-2009, 08:38 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]For those observing this debate, imagine this going on in 1930 - 1960, and you can see how the horror of Vat. II came about.  Consider the following (I am not accusing my very capable debating opponent of any of this) that Fr. Feeney surely saw coming:

1.  If a man can be saved without baptism, why bother?  In fact, if you instruct the savage in the right ways, you may end up condemning them to hell, where before they would have been saved.

2.  If a man can be saved without baptism, then what is it for?  Oh, it is an initiation ceremony into the Catholic Church (The Catholic church subsists in the Church of Christ is where this leads).

3.  Why did Christ have to die?  He didn't, He was murdered by the Romans.  But He forgave them, so they were all saved too.

4.  Since Christ didn't have to die, we really don't need the Mass to propitiate God's wrath.  Why would we need that?

5.  If Jesus had come down from the cross, then the Jews would have believed.  So they must be saved anyway, otherwise Jesus was a mean God since He could have saved them with a miracle.  Since I know that Jesus is all merciful, then the Jews were obviously saved, or else Jesus would have done something.

6.  Heck, everyone is saved.

7.  Since Mass is not needed, the Eucharist is really just Jesus present in some special way in the bread and wine.  So we can just make it a communal meal to unite us.  We Are Church.  Why insist on outdated medieval legends if it will turn off our separated brethren.

Note, all of this comes once you deny EENS and the related topic of salvation through grace.  Fr. Feeney saw this coming.

Here here!  :metal:

After Father Feeney’s death in 1978, the great Scottish apostle of Christ the King, Hamish Fraser, eulogized him as "one of the most outstanding prophets of our time. For not only did he most accurately diagnose the contemporary malaise, long before others became aware of it; he also put his finger on the very omission which was both symptom and cause of the plague of liberal indifferentism which eventually surfaced as post-Conciliar Neomodernism and oecumania."

The devil surely knew where to shoot his poison darts to cause the most harm.
(08-07-2009, 08:38 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]For those observing this debate, imagine this going on in 1930 - 1960, and you can see how the horror of Vat. II came about.  Consider the following (I am not accusing my very capable debating opponent of any of this) that Fr. Feeney surely saw coming:

1.  If a man can be saved without baptism, why bother?  In fact, if you instruct the savage in the right ways, you may end up condemning them to hell, where before they would have been saved.

2.  If a man can be saved without baptism, then what is it for?  Oh, it is an initiation ceremony into the Catholic Church (The Catholic church subsists in the Church of Christ is where this leads).

3.  Why did Christ have to die?  He didn't, He was murdered by the Romans.  But He forgave them, so they were all saved too.

4.  Since Christ didn't have to die, we really don't need the Mass to propitiate God's wrath.  Why would we need that?

5.  If Jesus had come down from the cross, then the Jews would have believed.  So they must be saved anyway, otherwise Jesus was a mean God since He could have saved them with a miracle.  Since I know that Jesus is all merciful, then the Jews were obviously saved, or else Jesus would have done something.

6.  Heck, everyone is saved.

7.  Since Mass is not needed, the Eucharist is really just Jesus present in some special way in the bread and wine.  So we can just make it a communal meal to unite us.  We Are Church.  Why insist on outdated medieval legends if it will turn off our separated brethren.

Note, all of this comes once you deny EENS and the related topic of salvation through grace.  Fr. Feeney saw this coming.

8. If one can be saved regardless of whether or not one holds the Catholic faith, then there is no need to protect the people from false religions and doctrines, and the proponents thereof should enjoy religious freedom.

9. Since salvation is available to those outside of the Church, there is no need to convert them to the Catholic faith; rather, the faithful ought to engage in oecumenism and inter-religious dialogue with their brothers in humanity.
James02 Wrote:He was described as a "just" man by his pagan servants.  This does not prove anything....

First, Aquinas is not infallible, but this is your best argument so far.  However, I have never denied that the unbaptized receive ACTUAL graces.  In fact, an adult who converts can NOT come to regeneration unless he receives these ACTUAL graces.  I have been quoting from the Council of Orange, remember?  Second, Aquinas says that the pagan can receive the forgiveness of his sins.  Does this equate to salvation?   The Jews in the Old Covenant could obtain just as much.  The passage you site is silent on whether this equates to salvation.  Third, when addressing the case of Cornelius, he just says that he receives graces (actual?) and virtues through faith.  He doesn't say the Cornelius was saved before baptism.  You also left out this part:I answer that, As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized are incorporated in Christ as His members."

So the question is whether a good soul like Cornelius can be in the state of Sanctifying grace (which merits heaven) without water Baptism.  You've presented the most liberal Feeneyite position, which is that a good adult soul like Cornelius can even have their sins forgiven with actual graces, but this does not give them Sanctifying grace unless water baptized.  Augustine, whom you've cited, disagrees:

St. Augustine Wrote:That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. On Baptism Book 4 Ch. 22

So here we have Augustine showing through revelation that one can be saved without water Baptism, while not precluding the moral obligation that everyone has to do it, including Cornelius, as a precept. 

(08-08-2009, 02:42 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:
That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. On Baptism Book 4 Ch. 22

So here we have Augustine showing through revelation that one can be saved without water Baptism, while not precluding the moral obligation that everyone has to do it, including Cornelius, as a precept. 

The problem here is that Baptism was not a requirement in the OT. Our Lord did not make Baptism with water a requirement until before He ascended into Heaven.

 
Oh bother. You have the testimony of Aquinas and Augustine, two of the greatest doctors of the Church above. There are other sources:

Quote:321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism? Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire. - Baltimore Catechism #3

Quote:323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire? An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation ... (a) Baptism of desire takes away all sin, original and actual, and the eternal punishment due to sin. It does not, however, imprint a character on the soul, nor does it necessarily take away all temporal punishment due to actual sins. (b) In baptism of desire there need not always be an explicit desire to receive baptism of water. ... "And behold, a certain lawyer got up to test him, saying 'Master, what must I do to gain eternal life?' But he said to him, 'What is written in the Law? How dost thou read?' He answered and said, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength, and with thy whole mind and thy neighbor as thyself.' and He said to him, 'Thou has answered rightly; do this and thou shalt live.'" (Luke 10:25-28) ... "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. But he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:21) ... "If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him." (John 14:23) - Ibid.

Quote:In the case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood (Sent. fidei prox.) a) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity). The council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same" ... According to the teaching of the Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7:47 - "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14:21 - "He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23:43 - "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: "Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: as he desired it, he has attained it ... His pious desire has absolved him." St. Augustine declared: "I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart, if perhaps the shorness of time does not permit the celebration of the mystery of Baptism." In the period of early Scholasticism, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo of St. Victor and the Summa Sententiarum defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. ... Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishment for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to other sacraments. - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma


You say that God should not be limited in one sentence and in the next limit him to the schedule and availability of a missionary. Now, I do agree that you can get off course on some liberal rabbit hole pretty fast if you admit that baptism of desire happens frequently, even among those with great access to the Truth (i.e., the Catholic Faith), but just because it is not a frequent occurrence does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Where are there infallible sources? A theologian or catechism can be an authority so long as they are in agreement with pre-existing defintions of doctrine.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14