Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

what EENS really means


Aloysius

Recommended Posts

Okay, since I mentioned how I think feeneyites can be easily crushed (not on baptism, but on EENS) by a simple working of the traditional Catholic understanding of mortal sin, culpability, and damnation... I'll just breifly explain what I meant by that and you can discuss.

It's really quite simple... the thing that kills and blocks grace in the soul is mortal sin (original sin as well, which is why I said this particular thing doesn't work for baptism). traditionally understood, three things are required for one to be guilty of mortal sin. If I remember correctly you can find these in the Baltimore Catechism and I'm sure in many many many other sources.

1, grave matter
2, full consent of the will
3, full knowledge what you're doing is wrong

so we can look behind the REASONING of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus... keep it formulated negatively but understand why and how it can be applied negatively. the reasoning is that it is a sin of grave matter to deny the Church. there are 2 other conditions to really kill and block grace from a soul, however.

Anyway, that's all I meant, it's quite simple and traditional... you cannot commit a mortal sin without three conditions present... and only mortal sin (or original sin) blocks grace from your soul. No mortal sin, you are open to the graces. If you are baptized and have the Trinity dwelling within you as our separated Christian (term coined by Leo XIII) friends do, you may access in some mystical unseen way the Church's treasury of graces.

it's not all that big a deal though. but that's what I meant in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

My comprehensive treatise on Feeneyism:
[url="http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thedude/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thed...tfeeneyism.html[/url]

Look for updates hopefully later this summer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's simplicity works for it. Since Trinitarian baptisms are considered valid given that the person doing them intends to do what the Church does, it necessarily follows that only mortal sin can block grace following baptism.

I like it. :D

Edited by Technicoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 23 2005, 06:18 PM'][. . .]

1, grave matter
2, full consent of the will
3, full knowledge what you're doing is wrong

so we can look behind the REASONING of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus... keep it formulated negatively but understand why and how it can be applied negatively.  the reasoning is that it is a sin of grave matter to deny the Church.  there are 2 other conditions to really kill and block grace from a soul, however. 

[. . .]
[right][snapback]621106[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, this makes sense and fits well with the doctrine of the Church as it was proclaimed at the Second Vatican Council, and even as it was held at the First Vatican Council in the original schema on the Church:

[quote]Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church.  Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and the Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance.  For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter.  God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain eternal life.  But no one obtains eternal life if he dies separated from the unity of faith or from communion with the Church through his own fault. [First Vatican Council, [u]Schema on the Church of Christ[/u] (chapter 7), presented to the Fathers of the council on 24 April 1870][/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:12 AM']Yes, this makes sense and fits well with the doctrine of the Church as it was proclaimed at the Second Vatican Council, and even as it was held at the First Vatican Council in the original schema on the Church:
[right][snapback]621409[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks for that reference. I've had a number of radical traditionalists point me to [i]Cantate Domino[/i] from the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and something by Pius XI relating to the ecumenical efforts of Protestant churches (perhaps the World Council of Churches) as support for the strict reading of that teaching. What I consistently found was that they accepted only what they wanted to get out of those documents. I could point to them the context and the larger picture, support from the early Church fathers, the more recent dogmatic constitutions, but to no avail.

Interestingly, people who argue against the historical reliability of scripture do the same things—they take a few paragraphs and disregard context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

phatcatholic

any time you can quote from a council before vatican 2, you bolster your case b/c they usually accept these councils unquestionably. quoting from early catechisms (for example, Pius X, Trent, or Baltimore Catechism) is helpful as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 24 2005, 01:24 PM']any time you can quote from a council before vatican 2, you bolster your case b/c they usually accept these councils unquestionably. quoting from early catechisms (for example, Pius X, Trent, or Baltimore Catechism) is helpful as well.
[right][snapback]621978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree, anything written prior to the Second Vatican Council will have a greater impact with Feeneyites.

A note of caution on the quotation that I've supplied from the First Vatican Council schema on the Church, it is a historical document and so it shows the mind of the Council Fathers at that time, but it was never voted on, because the Council dissolved without completing its work. Thus, it does not have dogmatic authority, but it is simply a witness to the faith of the bishops present at the Council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

I working on "Against Feeneyism version II" as we speak. I need some help though...

Can someone expalin the bolded parts of the following quotes and what significance they might have to Feeneyism:
[quote][u]St. Augustine:[/u]
“Pusillus of Lamasba said: "I believe that baptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church. Whatsoever is without the Catholic Church is mere pretense."
This indeed is true, that "baptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church." For in itself it can indeed exist outside the Catholic Church as well; but there it is not unto salvation, because there it does not work salvation; just as that sweet savor of Christ is certainly not unto salvation in them that perish, though from a fault not in itself, but in them. But "whatsoever is without the Catholic Church is mere pretense," yet only in so far as it is not Catholic. [b]But there may be something Catholic outside the Catholic Church, just as the name of Christ could exist outside the congregation of Christ, in which name he who did not follow with the disciples was casting out devils. For there may be pretense also within the Catholic Church, as is unquestionable in the case of those "who renounce the world in words and not in deeds," and yet the pretense is not Catholic. As, therefore, there is in the Catholic Church something which is not Catholic, so there may be something which is Catholic outside the Catholic Church[/b].”
(On Baptism, Against the Donatists: Book  7, Chapter 39 [ 76-77] [A.D. 400]).[/quote]
[quote][u]St. Justine Martyr:[/u]
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. [b]But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said[/b].
(First Apology, Chapter 46 [A.D. 151]).[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:58 PM']I working on "Against Feeneyism version II" as we speak.  I need some help though...

Can someone expalin the bolded parts of the following quotes and what significance they might have to Feeneyism:
[/quote]

I'll try.

[quote]But there may be something Catholic outside the Catholic Church, just as the name of Christ could exist outside the congregation of Christ, in which name he who did not follow with the disciples was casting out devils. For there may be pretense also within the Catholic Church, as is unquestionable in the case of those "who renounce the world in words and not in deeds," and yet the pretense is not Catholic. As, therefore, there is in the Catholic Church something which is not Catholic, so there may be something which is Catholic outside the Catholic Church.”[/quote]

Truth is the domain of the Church, but that doesn't mean that others don't have access to some of that same Truth. Jews know that God is One. Abraham knew it, and he knew God. Even Islam has that much of the Truth. The Church confirmed early on that people who were baptized using the Trinitarian formula (and by someone who intended to do as the Church teaches, heretic or not) were validly baptized. Here, then, are things occurring apart from the Church but affirming a Truth of the Church. So because these aspects of Truth can be present oustide the visible bounds of the Church, there may be something which is Catholic outside the Catholic Church.

[quote]But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said.[/quote]

Actually, the sentences that precede this are critical to the meaning. People who recognized that there was Truth, whether they were atheists who were striving to know what is true or Jews who recognized parts of the truth, could recognize the Truth of the Incarnation had they been present. The Jews knew Christ through the Father. ("The Father and I are One.") Atheistic Greeks knew the Father through [i]logos[/i] or the Word. Their inability to know the precise details of something that occurred well after their time did not hinder their ability to grasp the Truth.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

phatcatholic

to add to what technicoid said (who largely took the words right out of my mouth! :o):

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:09 PM']Actually, the sentences that precede this are critical to the meaning. People who recognized that there was Truth, whether they were atheists who were striving to know what is true or Jews who recognized parts of the truth, could recognize the Truth of the Incarnation had they been present. The Jews knew Christ through the Father. ("The Father and I are One.") Atheistic Greeks knew the Father through [i]logos[/i] or the Word. Their inability to know the precise details of something that occurred well after their time did not hinder their ability to grasp the Truth.

Hope that helps.[right][snapback]622120[/snapback][/right][/quote]
also, just as those who lived in truth and in reason before Jesus came can be said to have an implicit faith in Him, those who lived in lawlessness before Jesus came can be said to be hostile to Him. afterall, he existed as the Son from the beginning, and everything that is True and Good finds its source in Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

[quote]But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said.[/quote]
The preceding statements of Justin Martyr were refering to men of reason [i]before[/i] Christ. I thought that this statement was applying it to the invincibly ignorant [i]after[/i] the Incarnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

And could the statement of St. Augustine be taken to mean that there are "Catholic" people outside the Church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:31 PM']And could the statement of St. Augustine be taken to mean that there are "Catholic" people outside the Church?
[right][snapback]622354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think that Augustine is dealing more in the abstract, that is, with the possibility that there is Catholic truth, or better that there is grace, outside the Church. Now of course the graces that are given outside the visible structure of the Church, come from God through the Church, and so they move one to full Catholic communion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

You can download the new version called "Catholic Tradition Against Feeneyism" at my site:
[url="http://pmdude.blogspot.com/"]http://pmdude.blogspot.com/[/url]

As of right now it is "done." I've still got a little more patristical texts to browse through and more EENS literature to read. I'm open to any suggestions anyone has on improvements.

Edited by thedude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...