A Question on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#51
I do not believe in it the way that is prevalent these days where everyone goes to heaven via some [im]possible vague desire to have been baptized at their dying breath.

We used to be taught that we must persevere in the faith and that the devil tempts the hardest in the last hour - - - -how the H are those who lived without the faith their whole friggen life gonna even desire baptism?

Reply
#52
(03-06-2010, 07:25 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I do not believe in it the way that is prevalent these days where everyone goes to heaven via some [im]possible vague desire to have been baptized at their dying breath.

We used to be taught that we must persevere in the faith and that the devil tempts the hardest in the last hour - - - -how the H are those who lived without the faith their whole friggen life gonna even desire baptism?

See, I agree with you here and yet baptism by desire does have a place in tradition and the SSPX adamantly fights for it.  My question is what exactly that position is.  What is the traditional read of baptism by desire?  How often are we to believe it happens?  What are the requirements? 

Really, I'm trying to suss out what the major difference(s) is between traditional understanding of EENS and the post-Conciliar view on salvation.  There is a disconnect, but it's hard to put one's finger on it and I think that's because we haven't defined either position sufficiently.  That was my entire point for starting this thread.  I understand that the post-Conciliar Church's view is ambiguous at best because of vague wording and actions which seem to imply ideas of salvation that aren't explicitly given officially.  But that ambiguity might be enough to distinguish it from the traditional read of EENS if we could just find out exactly what that is.
Reply
#53
(03-06-2010, 07:32 PM)Walty Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:25 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I do not believe in it the way that is prevalent these days where everyone goes to heaven via some [im]possible vague desire to have been baptized at their dying breath.

We used to be taught that we must persevere in the faith and that the devil tempts the hardest in the last hour - - - -how the H are those who lived without the faith their whole friggen life gonna even desire baptism?

See, I agree with you here and yet baptism by desire does have a place in tradition and the SSPX adamantly fights for it.  My question is what exactly that position is.  What is the traditional read of baptism by desire?  How often are we to believe it happens?  What are the requirements? 

Really, I'm trying to suss out what the major difference(s) is between traditional understanding of EENS and the post-Conciliar view on salvation.  There is a disconnect, but it's hard to put one's finger on it and I think that's because we haven't defined either position sufficiently.  That was my entire point for starting this thread.  I understand that the post-Conciliar Church's view is ambiguous at best because of vague wording and actions which seem to imply ideas of salvation that aren't explicitly given officially.  But that ambiguity might be enough to distinguish it from the traditional read of EENS if we could just find out exactly what that is.

The council of Trent only made a mention of those who "at least vowed" to be baptized might be saved - from THAT came "baptism of desire".

What multitudes of folks - including learned Catholics believe, including the SSPX (I attend the SSPX TLM regularly)
is the liberal interpretation - which I believe you are confused about and I believe is completely and obviously wrong.

Simply put, if you were pope and you made an infallible declaration, would you declare it in a way so as to leave it open to interpretation?  . . .  . . . . . . well, neither did they.



Reply
#54
(03-06-2010, 07:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:32 PM)Walty Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:25 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I do not believe in it the way that is prevalent these days where everyone goes to heaven via some [im]possible vague desire to have been baptized at their dying breath.

We used to be taught that we must persevere in the faith and that the devil tempts the hardest in the last hour - - - -how the H are those who lived without the faith their whole friggen life gonna even desire baptism?

See, I agree with you here and yet baptism by desire does have a place in tradition and the SSPX adamantly fights for it.  My question is what exactly that position is.  What is the traditional read of baptism by desire?  How often are we to believe it happens?  What are the requirements? 

Really, I'm trying to suss out what the major difference(s) is between traditional understanding of EENS and the post-Conciliar view on salvation.  There is a disconnect, but it's hard to put one's finger on it and I think that's because we haven't defined either position sufficiently.  That was my entire point for starting this thread.  I understand that the post-Conciliar Church's view is ambiguous at best because of vague wording and actions which seem to imply ideas of salvation that aren't explicitly given officially.  But that ambiguity might be enough to distinguish it from the traditional read of EENS if we could just find out exactly what that is.

The council of Trent only made a mention of those who "at least vowed" to be baptized might be saved - from THAT came "baptism of desire".

What multitudes of folks - including learned Catholics believe, including the SSPX (I attend the SSPX TLM regularly)
is the liberal interpretation - which I believe you are confused about and I believe is completely and obviously wrong.

Simply put, if you were pope and you made an infallible declaration, would you declare it in a way so as to leave it open to interpretation?  . . .  . . . . . . well, neither did they.

Well, the question is whether "the Church" in EENS means only card carrying Catholics.  It boils down to the question of whether the grace of the Catholic Church remains only in the visible Catholic Church or whether it reaches into some Protestant denominations somehow.
Reply
#55
(03-06-2010, 07:42 PM)Walty Wrote: Well, the question is whether "the Church" in EENS means only card carrying Catholics.  It boils down to the question of whether the grace of the Catholic Church remains only in the visible Catholic Church or whether it reaches into some Protestant denominations somehow.

How can it possibly reach into non catholic denominations?

Why would anyone declare that dogma if it could? - - - - would you, if you were pope,  have declared it if there were even a hint of proviso?
Reply
#56
(03-06-2010, 07:51 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:42 PM)Walty Wrote: Well, the question is whether "the Church" in EENS means only card carrying Catholics.  It boils down to the question of whether the grace of the Catholic Church remains only in the visible Catholic Church or whether it reaches into some Protestant denominations somehow.

How can it possibly reach into non catholic denominations?

Why would anyone declare that dogma if it could? - - - - would you, if you were pope,  have declared it if there were even a hint of proviso?

Yes I see your point entirely.  But I also don't think Feeney is right.  It cannot be that everyone who is not a card carrying Catholic is damned.  And even the most loyal traditionalists do not say so.  And I don't think that is what was believed by the faithful previous to the Council.  There are a lot of things I wish I could ask St. Pius X.  This is one of them.
Reply
#57
(03-06-2010, 07:53 PM)Walty Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:51 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:42 PM)Walty Wrote: Well, the question is whether "the Church" in EENS means only card carrying Catholics.  It boils down to the question of whether the grace of the Catholic Church remains only in the visible Catholic Church or whether it reaches into some Protestant denominations somehow.

How can it possibly reach into non catholic denominations?

Why would anyone declare that dogma if it could? - - - - would you, if you were pope,  have declared it if there were even a hint of proviso?

Yes I see your point entirely.  But I also don't think Feeney is right.  It cannot be that everyone who is not a card carrying Catholic is damned.

What Fr. Feeney was fighting was the liberals of his day - where everyone (except those who held the literal declaration of EENS)  was saved via BOD or BOB.

It is well to be noted that, as stated in http://catholicism.org/book-loyolas-and-the-cabots.html

it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient.

I was fortunate enough, tho only 13 or 14 years old,  to have known and spoke with Fr. Feeney and can say without hesitation that the smear campaign against him is without a doubt the most complete I have ever seen in my life - - - - - - the scary part to me is how long ago that was. 


Reply
#58
(03-06-2010, 08:00 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:53 PM)Walty Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:51 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 07:42 PM)Walty Wrote: Well, the question is whether "the Church" in EENS means only card carrying Catholics.  It boils down to the question of whether the grace of the Catholic Church remains only in the visible Catholic Church or whether it reaches into some Protestant denominations somehow.

How can it possibly reach into non catholic denominations?

Why would anyone declare that dogma if it could? - - - - would you, if you were pope,  have declared it if there were even a hint of proviso?

Yes I see your point entirely.  But I also don't think Feeney is right.  It cannot be that everyone who is not a card carrying Catholic is damned.

What Fr. Feeney was fighting was the liberals of his day - where everyone (except those who held the literal declaration of EENS)  was saved via BOD or BOB.

It is well to be noted that, as stated in http://catholicism.org/book-loyolas-and-the-cabots.html

it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient.

I was fortunate enough, tho only 13 or 14 years old,  to have known and spoke with Fr. Feeney and can say without hesitation that the smear campaign against him is without a doubt the most complete I have ever seen in my life - - - - - - the scary part to me is how long ago that was. 

This is the most frustrating thing.  Baptism by desire seems to have authority in tradition.  As does baptism of blood.  What doesn't have any authority in tradition ( I don't think) is the notion that a vast majority of people living today outside the Church are going to be saved via either.  But I can't find anyone who can give me a traditional and definitive answer to what exactly BOD is and what the requirements are.

There is a shift in emphasis from trying to convert non-Catholics and speaking about them as if they have much less to a very little chance of salvation without explicitly being part of the Church.  Now the modernists act as if everyone is goign to make it.  What I can't find is the specific theological differences which account for these two very different attitudes.  Attitudes and actions are not theological statements.
Reply
#59
(03-06-2010, 08:06 PM)Walty Wrote: This is the most frustrating thing.  Baptism by desire seems to have authority in tradition.  As does baptism of blood.  What doesn't have any authority in tradition ( I don't think) is the notion that a vast majority of people living today outside the Church are going to be saved via either.  But I can't find anyone who can give me a traditional and definitive answer to what exactly BOD is and what the requirements are.

There is a shift in emphasis from trying to convert non-Catholics and speaking about them as if they have much less to a very little chance of salvation without explicitly being part of the Church.  Now the modernists act as if everyone is goign to make it.  What I can't find is the specific theological differences which account for these two very different attitudes.  Attitudes and actions are not theological statements.

That's the really amazing thing - BOD or BOB have absolutely zero authority in tradition.

Many folks ask - well what about the Holy Innocents - weren't they saved via BOB? - - - - The answer is, "No, the necessity of baptism wasn't even known to anyone at that time - Our Lord did not yet institute it as a requirement - - - heck, He was only an infant at that time Himself, no?"

Our Lord did not make Baptism with water a requirement for salvation until some time just shortly before He left this world, before His Ascension- - -  and HIS words are perfectly clear - again, any re-interpretation will result in a misinterpretation - THAT is how clear He was on this particular requirement for heaven. . . . . . . . Even tho Our Lord did speak in parables, He did not do that when it came to this particular requirement. 
Reply
#60

Quote:This is the most frustrating thing.  Baptism by desire seems to have authority in tradition.  As does baptism of blood.  What doesn't have any authority in tradition ( I don't think) is the notion that a vast majority of people living today outside the Church are going to be saved via either.  But I can't find anyone who can give me a traditional and definitive answer to what exactly BOD is and what the requirements are.

There is a shift in emphasis from trying to convert non-Catholics and speaking about them as if they have much less to a very little chance of salvation without explicitly being part of the Church.  Now the modernists act as if everyone is goign to make it.  What I can't find is the specific theological differences which account for these two very different attitudes.  Attitudes and actions are not theological statements.

BOD is sanctifying grace in the soul of a person who has not yet received the sacrament of Baptism.  The requirement is a free will to accept this grace from God.  The difference comes from the fact that liberals don't recognize that non-Catholics are in the state of objective mortal sin. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)