Taking Jesus as Lord and Savior? and Ecumenism

I have recently been in contact with people in the Catholic "orthodox" circles. They are relatively 'big' names, you know those lay speakers and priest on EWTN or CA radio. I wanted to see what their position on the first part ( as Fr. Harrison divides it) of the Dogma (pagans, Jews, Moslems, atheists..) I asked them if one needed to take Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved (btw I like this phrase because it summarizes the need for explicit Faith and excludes pagans etc... ) The response was as expected almost pure ignorance on the matter. They accused me of being a "Feeneyite"( like that is a bad thing) which they said means I am a "heretic" ( in nicer words of course)
Now I knew they were "liberals" and they don't know it, but to read that they 'Do not believe belief in Jesus as necessary for salvation" was emotionally shocking. I mean I expected some nuance or 1984 double speak but they were very clear, "No!"

So after thinking about it, the ironic conclusion is "Feeneyites" or or those with a strict understanding like Fr. Harrison are really more Ecumenical than these "right wing-liberals." If dialog with most Christian denominations started on this point both Protestants and Greek and Russian Orthodox would be running for the door, once they heard : "taking Jesus as Lord and Savior is not necessary for salvation!"

I have been in debates on the finer points and forgot how lost most Catholics, especially those who claim to be educated in the Faith, are on this subject.

I was tempted to contact Orthodox and Protestants on this matter so they may bring it up with these "knowledgeable" Catholics, and defeat them with Catholic sources but I didn't. I think that isn't the right course.

But in the end "Feeneyites" are more ecumenical than EWTN

That is pretty scandalous that Catholic apologists do not believe you need to take Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

I think most Eastern Orthodox would be fuzzy on the issue....I think they would say "It's a mystery."

I have recently been in contact with people in the Catholic "orthodox" circles. They are relatively 'big' names, you know those lay speakers and priest on EWTN or CA radio. I wanted to see what their position on the first part ( as Fr. Harrison divides it) of the Dogma (pagans, Jews, Moslems, atheists..) I asked them if one needed to take Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved (btw I like this phrase because it summarizes the need for explicit Faith and excludes pagans etc... ) The response was as expected almost pure ignorance on the matter. They accused me of being a "Feeneyite"( like that is a bad thing) which they said means I am a "heretic" ( in nicer words of course)
Now I knew they were "liberals" and they don't know it, but to read that they 'Do not believe belief in Jesus as necessary for salvation" was emotionally shocking. I mean I expected some nuance or 1984 double speak but they were very clear, "No!"

I am not surprised at all. You should spend more time with these alleged Catholics - you would be horrified as to how they think , how misinformed they are and how much hatred they have for anything not Vatican II.

RashaLampa wrote:That is pretty scandalous that Catholic apologists do not believe you need to take Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

I think most Eastern Orthodox would be fuzzy on the issue....I think they would say "It's a mystery."

Well I am going to have to hunt down an Orthodox monk or bishop and ask them. I don't think they will be fuzzy on this issue. ALL the Greek Church Father agree on this.

It would be nice if you could name names, and quote them directly.

Roguejim wrote:It would be nice if you could name names, and quote them directly.

I would like to give them some time to re-think their positions. I don't want to jump on them. I am looking for their conversion, first. I hope that my questioning will help to prod them to investigate. Unfortunately Fr. Harrison took down his article on the necessity of explicit faith that was on the St. Benedict Center site. It says he is working on it but its been down for more than a year. Maybe he was getting flak for it. My one complaint in that article was the near death experience-- bleck . It is like explaining alternative energy and then mentioning UFO's at the end. It kind of disqualified all that he said before it no matter how well research.

Luckily Rasha posted that well written reply to the Wanderer, by Fr. Harrison. I sent it to them. I hope that these "elite" will read it and think about it. I don't know how well known Fr. Harrison is among their circles but these guys only listen to celebrity, logic and doctrine have no effect, so he is very important.

duckbill wrote:

Roguejim wrote:It would be nice if you could name names, and quote them directly.

I would like to give them some time to re-think their positions. I don't want to jump on them. I am looking for their conversion, first. I hope that my questioning will help to prod them to investigate. Unfortunately Fr. Harrison took down his article on the necessity of explicit faith that was on the St. Benedict Center site. It says he is working on it but its been down for more than a year. Maybe he was getting flak for it. My one complaint in that article was the near death experience-- bleck . It is like explaining alternative energy and then mentioning UFO's at the end. It kind of disqualified all that he said before it no matter how well research.

Luckily Rasha posted that well written reply to the Wanderer, by Fr. Harrison. I sent it to them. I hope that these "elite" will read it and think about it. I don't know how well known Fr. Harrison is among their circles but these guys only listen to celebrity, logic and doctrine have no effect, so he is very important.

I've never read the article you speak of but I've heard it mentioned here and also at Pascendi's, I think, numerous times. Also that part about Near Death Experiences... I'd like to know where he went with that line of thought because, without reading it, I already have some reservations about it. Is this article available anywhere online?

Interesting post, duckbill. I look forward to any updates you may have.

I've said this before: Father Harrison's use of near death or "after" death experiences is consistent with St. Thomas and his idea of God enlightening those who strive to live in accordance with the will of God with the beliefs necessary for salvation. Those experiences have evidentiary value for the idea of real possibility for death bed conversions of the good faith non-member of the Church who nonetheless may be joined to her while still conscious and capable of intellectually and spiritually embracing Christ.

I agree with Father Harrison, who said thus in the article:

In any case, what these experiences do show very clearly is that a person hovering between life and death can no longer be assumed to be unconscious – without any mental experience whatever – just because he/she appears totally unconscious, or even lifeless, to bystanders. There is now just too much evidence that in fact, such a person may at that moment be undergoing some kind of intensely vivid and possibly life-changing conscious experience. In view of this fact, and especially in view of the omnipotence of God, I think we must conclude that in the case of good-willed non-Christians who have lived their life invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Gospel, it is entirely plausible to hold that the Holy Spirit enlightens such people in their last agony, enabling them to make an explicit act of faith in Jesus Christ, formed also by supernatural hope and charity, that will link them to the one true Church in a way that is sufficient for their salvation, even if they do not, prior to death, get as far as learning the secondary Catholic dogmas that follow on from the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Duckbill,

My one complaint in that article was the near death experience-- bleck . It is like explaining alternative energy and then mentioning UFO's at the end. It kind of disqualified all that he said before it no matter how well research.

I think your view is way off. In light of the quote I gave from Father Harrison, would you agree that your statement was rash and should be retracted or qualified. I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with your opinion . . . except that it's wrong (factually, not morally).

I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong, as well I might be, and it doesn't need a retraction it is just my opinion. But you seem to have no knowledge of human psychology. Near death experiences although researched, and could be real, that doesn't help the article because it is fringe science. UFOs could be real and be relevant to alternative energy but again it is fringe science. To be involved in the controversy of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and bring up another controversy with fringe science, to prove one's point, weakens the overall article. People are nit pickers in this area and will not be so "kind" as to cut the good Father some slake but use it as a tool to disqualify his overall otherwise good work and intentions.

Look at Father Feeney, Karl Keating launched into a character assassination (as usual) of Fr. Feeney painting him as a anti-Semite. If Fr. Feeney just avoided the whole issue of Jews or insulting Englishmen, the whole movement to promote Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus would be years ahead of what it is now.

Many "Feeneyites" promote kingships as apposed to democratic/republic. In the USA I would say that is bit too much psychologically for average American to take you serious in other issues. It could be debated which is better but it again puts American "feeneyites" at a psychological disadvantage by association. We need to keep our eye on the ball.

Br. Andre and some other "Feeneyites" promote that the South was more "Catholic" than the North, some say because Leo XIII sent a crown of thorns to the dixie president. Dixie is associated with slavery and thus makes "all " feeneyites pro-slavery by association, which is absurd, but that is how people think.

While I have had my run-ins with you and MRyan, I admire that you both at least think and try to find distinctions, but that is not common. I thought it imprudent to include it, I may be wrong, but from the people I spoke with, they seem to agree with me.

So for what it is worth I apologize if it was insulting, though I don't see how.

Duckbill,

No need to apologize. Like I said, I thought you were wrong factually, not morally. That is, I thought you were wrong in the opinion in the sense of not actually speaking truly of something that is real - a false observation if you will - but not "wrong" in the moral sense of smearing someone's character or defaming them, for which an apology would be in order. It isn't here.

I'll quote Father Harrison again and highlight his point:

In any case, what these experiences do show very clearly is that a person hovering between life and death can no longer be assumed to be unconscious – without any mental experience whatever – just because he/she appears totally unconscious, or even lifeless, to bystanders. There is now just too much evidence that in fact, such a person may at that moment be undergoing some kind of intensely vivid and possibly life-changing conscious experience. In view of this fact, and especially in view of the omnipotence of God, I think we must conclude that in the case of good-willed non-Christians who have lived their life invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Gospel, it is entirely plausible to hold that the Holy Spirit enlightens such people in their last agony, enabling them to make an explicit act of faith in Jesus Christ, formed also by supernatural hope and charity, that will link them to the one true Church in a way that is sufficient for their salvation, even if they do not, prior to death, get as far as learning the secondary Catholic dogmas that follow on from the Trinity and the Incarnation.

In other words, the mystery of what goes on between a person and God just prior to death is a mystery which these near death experiences dramatically emphasize. They have evidentiary value, though they do not prove, as to what really doesn't need "proof" to being with: God speaks to people and reveals Himself interiorly without others being able to observe it. These people came back from moments where they were said to be "dead" or "near death" and said things went on. That is not proof, but it is testimony that an individual's conversation with God, which I think we must concede goes on with those who are objectively speaking conscious (they tell us about it), can also go on with those who are objectively speaking unconscious (who have come back from such states to likewise tell us about it).

It would seem to me that your reluctance to accept such testimony can very well apply to the person who says he has such interior revelations in an objectively conscious state. I think, for example, of Bill Maher and his observation that such revelations are likewise "hallucinations," since they are similarly unprovable. No matter objectively alive and conscious or objectively "dead" and unconscious, the experience is entirely subjective and not observable by others either way. Yet you, and I, accept such visions by some who had them while alive (or sleeping) - such as the revelations of the angel to St. Joseph about Mary.

I just don't understand your reluctance here. Father Harrison is simply saying that this stuff supports the idea of an interior revelation to a soul by God, and just extends the time frame or broadens it a bit, and it does do that - you can be dismissive of the near death version, but it appears to me to be on the same grounds as Maher is dismissive of the "alive" verson. I just don't get it.

The fact is that we are not dealing with a subject that will allow such speculation. I never said it doesn't happen nor could it. I am saying you do deal with common sense. People who oppose the Dogma will jump on such speculative thinking that falls into the class of UFOs and Bigfoot.