Why I left the SSPX

[StevusMagnus]

Pasc,

What are your views on the doctrine EENS? Spill out your position and we'll see where we agree and/or disagree.

Also do you admit to being a personalist?

[pascendi]

Allow me to help you out by providing a little hint:  be extra, extra careful you don't read more into this statement than is actually there.  I'll see it.

If you ascribe to water baptism being strictly necessary for salvation, you would have to disagree with Pius IX.

Ah geez, Steven.  You've gone and done it anyways.  You've loaded more into what he said than what he actually said.

Your phrase about "reading into" signals to me you are about to launch into a McMasterian exercise of mental gymnastics. I'll get the parallel bars ready...

Ok.  Note two things about his statement.  First, he says "by divine light and grace", and secondly, he did not insert an important qualifier similar to what Cantate Domino uses, such as "unless before death" when speaking of the salvation of such souls in relation to their attachment to the Mystical Body.  Of course the invincibly ignorant can attain unto salvation, but only by divine light and grace, and if they attach themselves to the Church before death.  Look closely, however... he never actually said that the person in question had died without the actual sacraments necessary.  It just isn't there.  His meaning is entirely open ended such that the person he refers to can actually be the recipient of all that's necessary sacramentally before death. 

It is an excellent example of a pre-Vatican II ambiguous statement, even perhaps a bit weak in expression.  After all, if we are to be consistent, if the post-Council pontiffs can be ambiguous and use weak expression, certainly the pre-Council pontiffs can as well.  And sometimes, they actually did, of course. 

Now from Trent we know that the grace comes through the sacraments, and from Cantate Domino we know that one must be joined to the Church before death in order to be saved.  These truths are infallible, of course.  Now let's put this all together, and let me propose to you that the statement of Pope Pius IX is absolutely correct on the face of it, but that you have injected more into what he actually said by assuming that the kinds of souls he was talking about actually entered Heaven without the sacrament of baptism, which is where the divine grace comes from, or without divine light, such as St. Thomas Aquinas speculated about when he said that an angel could provide the necessary explicit knowledge of Christ needed by any soul before their death. 

Lastly, we know that those who die without baptism are denied the Beatific Vision, but will certainly not suffer torment for actual sins not committed.

Pope Pius IX doesn't say as much as you think he did; he left open the speculation that this same soul would be provided the actual sacraments necessary for salvation.  This soul, who truly desired them, can be said to be a recipient of them by way of an extraordinary means of provision.  Not extraordinary exception, but provision.

If necessary, I can lay out what the differences are between a theory of extraordinary exception to the sacraments, and a theory of extraordinary provision of the sacraments, that both seem allowed by the Church, but which of them is better and why it is better.

We can begin a new thread if you wish, but it's going to be a tough one.

We were talking about supplied jurisdiction, which is directly related to the topic of this thread.  Did you wish to continue with the diversion of the Feeney issue, or did you want to get back to the original discussion?  Either way is fine with me.

I said you should start a thread because this one was so bloated and hijacked. I never accused you of hijacking the thread, that's not my point.

I can accept your answer as the truth, sure.

 My point is that it is kind of silly to discuss Feeneyism on an SSPX thread, but if you don't want to start another thread that's fine with me.

I agree.

For the record, you ended the supplied jurisdiction discussion yourself. We were done with that ages ago....

I'm satisfied with it being finished.  If someone is bent on continue, I probably won't be able to resist participating.

[pascendi]

Pasc,

What are your views on the doctrine EENS? Spill out your position and we'll see where we agree and/or disagree.

I believe there is no salvation outside the Church, that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of baptism. 

Also do you admit to being a personalist?

It would be loads and loads of fun to have the those who would accuse me of Personalism actually lay out in their own words what they believe it is, and to try to fit me into it.  Since no one seems to know what they're really talking about, have them define their terms for me.  I will affirm or deny whatever they believe Personalism is. 

If we are to have an inquisition, I wish my inquisitors to be competent.

[StevusMagnus]

Your phrase about "reading into" signals to me you are about to launch into a McMasterian exercise of mental gymnastics. I'll get the parallel bars ready...

Look closely, however... he never actually said that the person in question had died without the actual sacraments necessary.  It just isn't there.  His meaning is entirely open ended such that the person he refers to can actually be the recipient of all that's necessary sacramentally before death. 

Oh geez. Talk about mental gymnastics! You barely got two sentences in before you went flying off of the rings, flipped over both uneven bars, did a handspring off the horse and landed on your rear!

Your spin is absolutely absurd on its face. Pius IX says " they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion". Someone in invincible ignorance about Catholicism doesn't receive the sacraments. He's obviously referring to people like the natives in the wilderness who haven't a clue about the Catholic Church and may have not ever even met a Catholic. If he meant what you said, it wouldn't be worth him saying it because it would have been meaningless.

It is an excellent example of a pre-Vatican II ambiguous statement, even perhaps a bit weak in expression.  After all, if we are to be consistent, if the post-Council pontiffs can be ambiguous and use weak expression, certainly the pre-Council pontiffs can as well.  And sometimes, they actually did, of course. 

Oh my goodness. There was nothing ambiguous about that statement at all. Not in the least. You are forcing a meaning on the text that simply isn't there at all. I don't know how he could have been much clearer. You are trying to play games to wiggle around statements that sink your position. But the best position against Feeneyism (besides the fact it is not Catholic), is common sense. How anyone could believe in such formalistic rigorism that would condemn invincibly ignorant souls to Hell without exception is beyond me.

Lastly, we know that those who die without baptism are denied the Beatific Vision, but will certainly not suffer torment for actual sins not committed.

Oh really? Last I checked the only two places we can eventually wind up are Heaven and Hell, unless you are speculating that all the invincibly ignorant go to some sort of Feeneyite limbo which would contradict Pius IX as well.

Pope Pius IX doesn't say as much as you think he did; he left open the speculation that this same soul would be provided the actual sacraments necessary for salvation.  This soul, who truly desired them, can be said to be a recipient of them by way of an extraordinary means of provision.  Not extraordinary exception, but provision.

If necessary, I can lay out what the differences are between a theory of extraordinary exception to the sacraments, and and theory of extraordinary provision of the sacraments, that both seem allowed by the Church, but which of them is better and why it is better.

Wow! You've moved from the horse and you've now started doing a floor routine complete with Feeneyite colored streamers and leotard. Since going off the rails with a formalistic/ rigorist view of water baptism, you now have to create a construct to patch up the logical holes in your theory. So somehow I suppose, at the moment of death, Christ is going to physically appear to these souls and water baptize them so your theory can be fulfilled? Truly incredible.

It's amazing to me that you go through all of this mechanation to justify sending countless ignorant souls to Hell on the one hand and then you are totally a-ok with abuse ridden NO Masses. It is mind boggling. I truly think you do have a split personality!

For the record, you ended the supplied jurisdiction discussion yourself. We were done with that ages ago....

I'm satisfied with it being finished.  If someone is bent on continue, I probably won't be able to resist participating.

Pasc, you never really "participated" in the last discussion on it. You simply repeated the same Canon we all agreed on 5,342 times!  I think I'd rather beat my head against a brick wall then go through that insanity again.

[StevusMagnus]

It would be loads and loads of fun to have the those who would accuse me of Personalism actually lay out in their own words what they believe it is, and to try to fit me into it.  Since no one seems to know what they're really talking about, have them define their terms for me.  I will affirm or deny whatever they believe Personalism is. 

ATC already provided you with the website that defined the term in detail.

[pascendi]

Your phrase about "reading into" signals to me you are about to launch into a McMasterian exercise of mental gymnastics. I'll get the parallel bars ready...

Look closely, however... he never actually said that the person in question had died without the actual sacraments necessary.  It just isn't there.  His meaning is entirely open ended such that the person he refers to can actually be the recipient of all that's necessary sacramentally before death. 

Oh geez. Talk about mental gymnastics! You barely got two sentences in before you went flying off of the rings, flipped over both uneven bars, did a handspring off the horse and landed on your rear!

Ah see, now you're just going to spin this conversation.  I'm looking for something better than this, Steven.

Your spin is absolutely absurd on its face. Pius IX says " they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion". Someone in invincible ignorance about Catholicism doesn't receive the sacraments. He's obviously referring to people like the natives in the wilderness who haven't a clue about the Catholic Church and may have not ever even met a Catholic. If he meant what you said, it wouldn't be worth him saying it because it would have been meaningless.

Clearly you have not understood my point.  I was talking precisely about the same sort of native, and of course also, do not forget the babies who die unbaptised.

It is an excellent example of a pre-Vatican II ambiguous statement, even perhaps a bit weak in expression.  After all, if we are to be consistent, if the post-Council pontiffs can be ambiguous and use weak expression, certainly the pre-Council pontiffs can as well.  And sometimes, they actually did, of course. 

Oh my goodness. There was nothing ambiguous about that statement at all. Not in the least.

I most clearly laid out exactly how it remained unqualified in certain respects, which is entirely the truth, but I'm going to need you to take the time to notice it.  Again, read what I actually wrote.

You are forcing a meaning on the text that simply isn't there at all.

What I'm doing is forcing nothing over and above what's actually there.  That's the entire point, Steven.  I'm claiming that you are.

I don't know how he could have been much clearer. You are trying to play games to wiggle around statements that sink your position.

Not at all.  Read what I wrote and attempt to understand what was written.

But the best position against Feeneyism (besides the fact it is not Catholic), is common sense. How anyone could believe in such formalistic rigorism that would condemn invincibly ignorant souls to Hell without exception is beyond me.

Try referencing the Council of Florence.  Read and learn what the Council of Florence states on this matter.  Far from any formalistic rigorism, my position is most likely in fact more in line with the mercy and omnipotence of God than your own.  But more than this, I can see that you are not at all reading what I actually wrote.  I specifically indicated that God can provide these natives and babies the actual sacraments if He wishes to do so.  You must have missed this. 

But in order for you to know this, you must first ditch the hysterics and actually try to understand what it is that I wrote.

Lastly, we know that those who die without baptism are denied the Beatific Vision, but will certainly not suffer torment for actual sins not committed.

Oh really?

Oh yes. That's what the Church actually teaches.

Last I checked the only two places we can eventually wind up are Heaven and Hell, unless you are speculating that all the invincibly ignorant go to some sort of Feeneyite limbo which would contradict Pius IX as well.

Did you not know that the Limbo of the Infants and the Limbus Patris were considered a part of Hell?  That the justified souls of the Old Testament were waiting in this part of Hell until, per the Creed, Christ decended into it, releasing the justified souls of the Old Testament, Dismas included, among other things?  Did you ever notice that Bl. Mary of Agreda openly speaks of these things?

Wow! You've moved from the horse and you've now started doing a floor routine complete with Feeneyite colored streamers and leotard. Since going off the rails with a formalistic/ rigorist view of water baptism, you now have to create a construct to patch up the logical holes in your theory. So somehow I suppose, at the moment of death, Christ is going to physically appear to these souls and water baptize them so your theory can be fulfilled? Truly incredible.

It's amazing to me that you go through all of this mechanation to justify sending countless ignorant souls to Hell on the one hand and then you are totally a-ok with abuse ridden NO Masses. It is mind boggling. I truly think you do have a split personality!

You know, Steven, you're dodging me.

Pasc, you never really "participated" in the last discussion on it. You simply repeated the same Canon we all agreed on 5,342 times!  I think I'd rather beat my head against a brick wall then go through that insanity again.

Ever heard the ancient phrase "repetition is the mother of learning"?  Hail Mary.  If a truth is the truth, why should we not repeat it?

[pascendi]

It would be loads and loads of fun to have the those who would accuse me of Personalism actually lay out in their own words what they believe it is, and to try to fit me into it.  Since no one seems to know what they're really talking about, have them define their terms for me.  I will affirm or deny whatever they believe Personalism is. 

ATC already provided you with the website that defined the term in detail.

I demand that either you or ATC give me, in your own words, an exact layout of Personalism, and then show me how I fit into it.  Nothing less will suffice.

Edit to add:  Steven, we need a new thread for this if we are going to talk about it... salvation, that is. 

[newschoolman]

What is meant here by "personalism"?

[pascendi]

What is meant here by "personalism"?

It's such a personal matter that no one can tell us.

Steven, I dug this up from a conversation two or three years ago on the same subject; perhaps I was clearer then than now.  If possible, I'd like to have you see the point made.  I would like to avoid having to wade through theatrical responses when the point being made is perfectly valid.

Bl. Pius IX wrote:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

First you have to note the nature of the document itself, that of being a papal encyclical. While in no way whatsoever indicating that just because this is a papal encyclical we have a right to disregard anything it contains, it in fact does not represent an act of the Pope using his supreme authority to define or declare a dogma.

That being said, there is nothing objectionable in this statement. It is, unfortunately, a bit loosely stated such that people are inclined to believe it is saying something which in fact it does not say; they want to claim that it says there can be salvation outside the Church for the invincibly ignorant. A careful examination proves that it doesn't, but remember, even if it did, it still would not represent an act of the supreme magisterium binding anyone to a belief.

The first thing that Pius IX does, in blue text above, is to reiterate that which is already known to be binding Catholic dogma. Then he turns to invincible ignorance. Note the red text: he explicitly states that it is in virtue of divine light and grace, and not by way of any exception to divine light and grace, that someone can be saved. Note also that he did not specify that in what way they would have come to receive this divine light and grace. If someone were to conclude that they came to this divine light and grace in a way other than the sacraments, they would be reading into his words more than he had written, making assumptions and drawing their own conclusions.

However, how did St. Thomas Aquinas speculate on how they would receive divine light? St. Thomas knew and upheld the Catholic truth that an explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation. He speculated that such an invincibly ignorant good-willed person might be visited and instructed by an angel. But note that he did not speculate that such a person was exempted from a knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Similiarly, if one receives grace, and we know that sanctifying graces comes to the soul via the sacrament of baptism, what can a person safely speculate is the means by which souls might have access to divine light and grace as Pius IX states? Since Pius IX didn't specify how they received it, one might speculate that they were perhaps visited by a saint and were able to obtain the actual sacrament of baptism. This would fit right in with Pius IX's comments without violating the dogmas of our Catholic Faith in the slightest. But the one thing Pius IX did NOT say is that these people were exempted from the sacrament of baptism. But again, people draw this conclusion from his words on their own. He didn't say it, though.

In conclusion, Pius IX, in a loosely stated, non-definitive, nonbinding comment, doesn't want to rule out ways beyond our knowing in which God moves to help those who seem to be beyond the Church's sacraments, but is at the same time careful to state that it is by divine light and grace, and not by an exemption from divine light and grace, that they are saved; and, he furthermore does not indicate that they have NOT received the sacraments.

He then states that people will not be punished for actual sins they didn't commit, which is the truth. However, the subject of Original Sin is not addressed.

We have here a loose statement of Pius IX used by people, privately interpreting the statement according to their own wishes, using it to claim he said something he didn't actually say. Meanwhile, we are bound by the dogmas of our Faith which state that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter of that sacrament.

Hopefully the older presentation is clearer, Steven.

[PeterII]

When the sacraments are no longer available from priests with ordinary jurisdiction, I promise I'll be the first to let you know.

A telling statement and an excellent summary of the underlying error in pascendi's pov. What has become clear to me (after much thought and prayer) is that pascendi is applying Feeneyism to jurisdiction. If you look at his arguments and substitute BOD for "supplied jurisdiction" it becomes crystal clear.

There you have it.  Feeneyites have to make an idol out of legalism or else they could not claim to be Catholics.  Their so called "reconciliation" was not a true reconciliation of faith, but a legalistic abuse by post conciliar churchmen suspect of heresy.  The ecumaniacs who run the Vatican these days are happy to reconcile anyone who does not criticize the Pope.  The Feeneyites in turn need to prop up this legalism in order to cover up their theological position which is heresy/proximate heresy.

Naturally, an organization like the SSPX which properly puts faith above legality will be attacked by them.