Why do so many Catholics drop the ball when it comes to EENS?
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  Why insist on outdated medieval legends if it will turn off our separated brethren.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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Why do so many Catholics drop the ball when it comes to EENS? - by James02 - 08-07-2009, 08:38 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)