FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Another EENS, please be patient... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Another EENS, please be patient... (/showthread.php?tid=44655)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 07-07-2011

(07-07-2011, 07:10 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(07-07-2011, 01:14 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-07-2011, 01:03 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: So, we are agreed: Outside the visible structure of the church there is no salvation.

This may be where I disagree with the Feeney position.  A prot child, validly baptized, who dies before the age of reason, goes to heaven.  I am more "mechanistic" in my views.

I personally believe the child would die a Catholic in that situation.

Fr. Feeney believed the Church taught the same thing as you.....................But this world, as far as men go, need not be a failure! Everybody could know about the Catholic Faith! There is not a city in the United States where you could not find it. Little babies could not find it, I grant you, but little Protestant babies who die before they reach the age of reason are saved. Baptism made them Catholics. That is very sweet, is it not? There is only one Baptism. And every baptized baby is a subject of our Holy Father the Pope. (When you go to Heaven, most of the Americans you meet will be under seven years of age!) But you are not babies, and I am not talking to you as babies. I am talking to you as grown-ups, with Christian responsibilities for fulfilling all Christ's
commandments, once you have heard them.
- Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life, Chapter 1

Amen!

We all agree.

The further question that arises is not the need for baptism,  but the need for explicit faith.  Suppose a baptized child, say in a Catholic family, is not well taught.  He is not taught anything against the Catholic Church, but he is not taught the faith.  When he reaches the age of reason,  does his lack of knowledge of his faith automatically destroy the faith he was given at baptism?  Or does he retain his baptismal faith, without explicit faith,  until God judges that he has culpably rejected or failed to learn the faith? That might indeed be very quickly, but might it take some time?

Perhaps this is somewhat outside the main subject of this thread, but I thought it was an interesting question.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - James02 - 07-08-2011

Quote: The further question that arises is not the need for baptism,  but the need for explicit faith. 

First, the Church has always taught that this Faith is supplied by the parents for infants.

Now, an interesting question arises over MATERIAL heresy.  Suppose a poorly catechized child starts building up material heresy after material heresy.  At some point, does he cease to be Catholic?  I mean, you can get ridiculous about it and say he doesn't even know who Jesus is.  I think this can't be answered (too many variables), and it is left to God to judge.

In your specific example, a faithless child coming into adulthood will 99% of the time apostatize.  I can't see him getting up early on Sunday to go to Mass.  At the same time, if he keeps going to Mass, I would say, gut feel, he still has Faith.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 07-08-2011

(07-08-2011, 12:42 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: The further question that arises is not the need for baptism,  but the need for explicit faith. 

First, the Church has always taught that this Faith is supplied by the parents for infants.

Now, an interesting question arises over MATERIAL heresy.  Suppose a poorly catechized child starts building up material heresy after material heresy.  At some point, does he cease to be Catholic?  I mean, you can get ridiculous about it and say he doesn't even know who Jesus is.  I think this can't be answered (too many variables), and it is left to God to judge.

In your specific example, a faithless child coming into adulthood will 99% of the time apostatize.  I can't see him getting up early on Sunday to go to Mass.  At the same time, if he keeps going to Mass, I would say, gut feel, he still has Faith.

Actually, that is not technically true: THe parents faith does not save the Child. THe Parents faith is what brings them to the church, The church offers the child up for baptism, thus supplying the necessary disposition, and FAITH is infused inot the Child upon baptism: So the baptized infant properly has the gift of Faith. received in baptism. Not vicariously. Hence infant damnation/limbo.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - UnamSanctam - 07-09-2011

(07-08-2011, 11:52 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(07-08-2011, 12:42 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: The further question that arises is not the need for baptism,  but the need for explicit faith. 

First, the Church has always taught that this Faith is supplied by the parents for infants.

Now, an interesting question arises over MATERIAL heresy.  Suppose a poorly catechized child starts building up material heresy after material heresy.  At some point, does he cease to be Catholic?  I mean, you can get ridiculous about it and say he doesn't even know who Jesus is.  I think this can't be answered (too many variables), and it is left to God to judge.

In your specific example, a faithless child coming into adulthood will 99% of the time apostatize.  I can't see him getting up early on Sunday to go to Mass.  At the same time, if he keeps going to Mass, I would say, gut feel, he still has Faith.

Actually, that is not technically true: THe parents faith does not save the Child. THe Parents faith is what brings them to the church, The church offers the child up for baptism, thus supplying the necessary disposition, and FAITH is infused inot the Child upon baptism: So the baptized infant properly has the gift of Faith. received in baptism. Not vicariously. Hence infant damnation/limbo.

As I am aware, neither the faith of the celebrant or sponsor affects the validity or effect of any sacrament, so far as the sacraments are done in proper form.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 07-12-2011

So, has anyone run across any magisterial documents that explicitly teach the theological theory of Baptism of desire, especially implicit?


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - kena - 07-14-2011

The answer would be in answering "Is there anything which excludes baptism of desire from being believed?". Baptism of Desire, as Catholic theology, does not replace Baptism. As such, it probably cannot be taught specifically as it would not serve a purpose.  If therefore, there is no way to be made a member of the church apart from baptism, and nobody can be saved who is not a member, then no one can be saved who has not received baptism.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 07-14-2011

Exactly. However, there is a singular exception that Bellarmine gave to Catechumens that I find intriguing. Although Catechumens are not formal members of the church, nevertheless, they form part of the catechuminate, an organizational part of the church. They have fled falsehood and seek that baptism without which none are saved. If through no fault of their own they die without having received the sacrament, it may be possible for them to be saved, inasmuch as they constitute part of the visible structure of the Church.

Interesting. They are definitely justified by their intention to receive the sacrament as soon as possible. But just what that MEANS is disputed. Fr. Feeney held their justification was incomplete, because they had no sacramental seal; therefore they could not be saved. But they were not unjust, so they would not be condemned. He opted for agnosia. Most other Catholic theologians opt for "Justified, is Justified" The kingdom of heaven belongs to the just.

Now, the interesting thing about the modern liberal theology, is that from where I am sitting, it looks like the protestant invisible church heresy.

Protestants say there is the visible church, and the invisible church. The visible church contains the members of the invisible church; all true believers in Christ. So that even if the churches are disunited, or even consider each other heretics, they, nevertheless, may belong to the invisible body of Christ and be saved, since they are true believers in the essentials. So, you don't need to necessarily be orthodox to be saved. YOu simply need to be members of the invisible church. A true believer.

Now, the recent teaching of liberal Catholic theologians, is that the Church of Christ Subsists IN (not AS) the Catholic Church. In otherwords, the Mystical body of Christ is distinct from the Catholic church in which it subsists.

As such, it is possible for people of goodwill who follow the dictates of their conscience, and who act on the grace God has given them to be made members of the Church of Christ without Catholic Faith. It is said these have implicit faith, that they would desire the faith if they knew it. The new theology says that Protestants Jews and Muslims can be made members of the mystical body if they have goodwill and die acting on all the graces GOd has given them in all sincerity.

How is this different than the Protestant heresy of the invisible Church, other than the fact that it opens the body of Christ up to unconverted members of false religions?

It is the same thing. The only difference is that the Invisible Church is called "Catholic." That is a meaningless label, for the FACT of the matter is the same FACT that makes the Protestant notion wrong: It is heretical to say any salvation can be had by any outside the church, BECAUSE:

"Outside the Church, there is no salvation."

The remedy is one of two things:

Either:

A. Reject the novelty of this idea of the Church of Christ "subsisting in" the Catholic church, as though it descends from on high to fill what is distinct from it, and return to the simple formula of : "The mystical body of Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church."

B. If you insist on using the word "Subsists," say "Subsists as" not "subsists in." To say The Church of Christ Subsists in this World as the Roman Catholic church is wholly Orthodox, because to subsist means to receive the individual being from the substance, from the greek term "Upostasis." You would not say "God the word subsists in the Christ." That is Nestorianism. YOu would say "God the word Subsists on earth AS Christ." That is the Hypostatic Union, God's taking humanity and making it his own in the oneness of a single being, the Incarnate Word, retaining all the properties of the natures without Confusion, division, change or separation."

Likewise, What is spoken of Christ, is spoken of his Body, the Church. The Church is the Union of The Human Element and organizational structure, and the divine, in the ONENESS of a single entity, the Catholic Church, which is FREE of Confusion (THe humans empowered by divine Grace remain HUman), Change (There is nothing novel in the official teaching of the church; the members do not turn into God himself by nature, nor do they become additional members of the trinity), division (The Mystical Body of Christ, which is the totality of the Church in its three states of Militant, Suffering and Triumphant, undergoes no physical separation from her head, which is Christ. None can be united to Him who is not united to the Church) or separation (None can be saved apart from Christ and his church, therefore there is no salvation outside the Church, because Christ and the Church are one in the unity of a single subsistence. He Is his Body, and He has made all the members of the body one with him. There can be no making one with Christ unless you are a member of his body. He did not take to himself multiple human persons, nor did he appear in multiple genders, He took a single and particular body and nature and form, and we are to be united in the unity and oneness of a single particular body, having been given a new nature, with the Holy Spirit empowering and forming us into the image and likeness of Christ himself.)

There is absolutely NO salvation for those who exist outside the church: None can enter but through the gate, and the gate is baptism, which is, effectively, Christ himself, since it is the means by which man is regenerated and made a member of Christ.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 07-14-2011

(07-14-2011, 01:53 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Exactly. However, there is a singular exception that Bellarmine gave to Catechumens that I find intriguing. Although Catechumens are not formal members of the church, nevertheless, they form part of the catechuminate, an organizational part of the church. They have fled falsehood and seek that baptism without which none are saved. If through no fault of their own they die without having received the sacrament, it may be possible for them to be saved, inasmuch as they constitute part of the visible structure of the Church.

Interesting. They are definitely justified by their intention to receive the sacrament as soon as possible. But just what that MEANS is disputed. Fr. Feeney held their justification was incomplete, because they had no sacramental seal; therefore they could not be saved. But they were not unjust, so they would not be condemned. He opted for agnosia. Most other Catholic theologians opt for "Justified, is Justified" The kingdom of heaven belongs to the just.

See, IMO, Bellarmine, (and at least a few other notable saints and Dr.s etc) for whatever reason, seems to have strayed from fundamental Church teachings in favor of mercy according to human reason and feelings......again, that's just my opinion.

Fr. Feeney referenced Lucifer and all the devils who were once in the state of justification yet lost it.
St.'s Adam and Eve and all those saved in the OT who died in the state of Justification - yet were not rewarded salvation until Our Lord's ascension. They died in the state of Justification - why were they not rewarded salvation?
What about the words of Our Lord Himself stating the necessity of Baptism for salvation  - and the Church echoing this teaching as the necessity before any other Sacrament etc.

The jist of that whole issue is - justification and salvation are two different things completely.

Another Church teaching that many seem to forget is that Our Lord taught us that we all are expected to be ready at any moment to face Him. HE knows when He will take us - it is we who do not know when we will die.

That our Lord will come for us "like a thief in the night" teaches us that we all should always be prepared - He never left a proviso for "the catechumen".

The whole BOD "teaching" depends on - or seems *to me* to be entirely dependent upon the "unforeseen accidental death" theory - to that, I reply - aren't all deaths accidental or unforeseen by us?

Holy Mother the Church warns us that *we all* should expect to die unexpectedly - unless you're on death row, all deaths come unexpectedly or accidentally if you will -  that is why we all need to *remain in Sanctifying Grace* so that when we do die, we will be ready ----- She does not nor has She ever taught that one does not need to be prepared ahead of time - nor has She ever taught that for whoever is unprepared, their desire for preparation will reward them salvation - enter BOD.........

Where does the below teaching leave any wiggle room whatsoever for those catechumens who died and were rewarded eternal salvation by only wishing they were prepared?

Mat. 24:44 Wherefore be ye also ready, because at what hour you know not, the Son of man will come.

The comments from the Haydock Bible accurately reflect Church teaching as I know it..............

Watch ye, therefore. That men might not be attentive for a time only, but preserve a continual vigilance, the Almighty conceals from them the hour of their dissolution: they ought therefore to be ever expecting it, and ever watchful. But to the eternal infamy of Christians be it said, much more diligence is used by the worldly wise for the preservation of their wealth, than by the former for the salvation of their immortal souls. Though they are fully aware that the Lord will come, and like a thief in the night, when they least expect him, they do not persevere watching, nor guard against the irreparable misfortune of quitting the present life without previous preparation. Therefore will the day come to the destruction of such as are reposed in sleep. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxviii. on S. Matt.) --- Of what importance is it then that we should be found watching, and properly attentive to the one thing necessary, the salvation of our immortal souls. For what will it avail us, if we have gained the whole world, which we must then leave, and lose our immortal souls, which, owing to our supine neglect to these admonitions of Jesus Christ, must suffer in hell-flames for all eternity? (Haydock)






Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - SouthpawLink - 07-14-2011

Not to re-enter the debate, but where has the Magisterium explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation?  It appears that she has in fact equated them:

"We must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16).

Would your counter-argument be that catechumens haven't fully satisfied the divine law (i.e. no baptism)?  But then neither can they be considered justified.  We have a dilemma on our hands.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 07-14-2011

(07-14-2011, 10:11 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Not to re-enter the debate, but where has the Magisterium explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation?  It appears that she has in fact equated them:

"We must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16).

Would your counter-argument be that catechumens haven't fully satisfied the divine law (i.e. no baptism)?  But then neither can they be considered justified.

Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16 is speaking about those already Sacramentally baptized.