K
Kei
Guest
Isn’t Feeneyism more about denying baptism of desire?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
AlNg
Guest
When God became man 2000 years ago, was that a change from the situation in 1000 BC when God was not man?God does not change.
K
Kei
Guest
Jesus Christ in His walk on Earth was not an enmeshing of the Divine Nature and Human Nature, but rather had two Natures: Divine and Human, as One Person.
Also, when we say God does not change, this is not to say He does not act or do things, and is static.
Also, when we say God does not change, this is not to say He does not act or do things, and is static.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Yes, your point here is a good one and I think for the most part it gets swept under the rug. The story you are sharing is far too common to have been a local, or isolated problem. Those things were indeed taught as “Truth”, among other things I have heard as well. It throws the whole idea of “Truth” into question. I don’t like using the term exactly because of those reasons. I don’t like how the word “Truth” is thrown around, especially here on CAF - ignorantly hurled sanctimony, using a capital T in an attempt to signal that it comes straight from God himself to your eyes.Would you mind commenting on my previous post:
My point is that the teachers I had WERE telling me the truth “as they understood it.”.
That is to say, those officials of the Church who formulated the doctrine presumably did their best to be guided by the Holy Spirit in making their Truth claim.
Yes, it was the proper understanding as the nuns were told to present it to their students. It’s no longer the seen that way. Which should lead us to ask ourselves if God wants us to be so sure about these sorts of things, I mean in a rigid way.
I hear Catholics do a lot of talking about “Bible Thumpers”, and not in a good way. But Catholics today are starting to come across as being “Truth Thumpers”, very arrogant. I see a lot of it on EWTN and Catholic Answers, not to mention the forums here. That wasn’t a thing 35 years ago when I was growing up, but the last 10 years or so there has been some backsliding…lots of sanctimonious finger pointing and shows of piety, just like in the 1950’s. I worry a little bit about my own children’s “catechesis” in our “orthodox” parish; but, so far so good.
Last edited:
C
CatholicSpirit
Guest
Did combatting prohibited things like Marijuana and losing the fight play a role? That era was quite abrupt…
P
pnewton
Guest
There was a story I remember from my childhood.
A man died and went to Heaven. St. Peter showed him around, walking past a series of buildings down a street of gold. As the passed the first building, the man heard a man screaming out a fiery sermon on hell and sin. St. Peter explained, “That is the Baptist heaven.” The continued, down the street, the man heard a bunch of people talking in what sounded like a babbling language coming from the second building. St. Peter explained that was the Pentecostal heaven. They passed that building as St. Peter kept talking about heaven. When they came upon the third building, they heard the sound of Latin being chanted. St. Peter said (of course), " That is the Roman Catholic heaven." As they passed that building, St. Peter motioned for the man to be quiet. The walked on. The sound of acapella singing came from the fourth building. St. Peter whispered as so softly the man could barely make it out. “That’s the Church of Christ heaven.”
“Oh,” the man said. “Why are we whispering.”
St. Peter responded, “They think they are the only ones here.”
I only tell this story because I remember that even when I was young it seemed like we all spent a lot of time sentencing each other to Hell. If you would ever get down to the theology the different Christians believed, it was different. The potential for Heaven for all was believed by most. But in the rank and file, it seemed like intolerance was more the rule.
A man died and went to Heaven. St. Peter showed him around, walking past a series of buildings down a street of gold. As the passed the first building, the man heard a man screaming out a fiery sermon on hell and sin. St. Peter explained, “That is the Baptist heaven.” The continued, down the street, the man heard a bunch of people talking in what sounded like a babbling language coming from the second building. St. Peter explained that was the Pentecostal heaven. They passed that building as St. Peter kept talking about heaven. When they came upon the third building, they heard the sound of Latin being chanted. St. Peter said (of course), " That is the Roman Catholic heaven." As they passed that building, St. Peter motioned for the man to be quiet. The walked on. The sound of acapella singing came from the fourth building. St. Peter whispered as so softly the man could barely make it out. “That’s the Church of Christ heaven.”
“Oh,” the man said. “Why are we whispering.”
St. Peter responded, “They think they are the only ones here.”
I only tell this story because I remember that even when I was young it seemed like we all spent a lot of time sentencing each other to Hell. If you would ever get down to the theology the different Christians believed, it was different. The potential for Heaven for all was believed by most. But in the rank and file, it seemed like intolerance was more the rule.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
God does not change.
That seems like a change.Jesus Christ in His walk on Earth was not an enmeshing of the Divine Nature and Human Nature, but rather had two Natures: Divine and Human, as One Person.
4000 years ago, God had one nature. But 2000 years ago God came down from heaven and became man. And therefore had two natures.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
That was just a tiny part of it. A lot of Feeney’s issues had to do not only with Protestants, but also with unbaptized babies who died and people who never had a chance to hear about Christianity for centuries, like Native Americans. Obviously none of these people could have desired baptism.Isn’t Feeneyism more about denying baptism of desire?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Sometimes the lessons in the Catechism are not taught correctly.
Also (Latin canon law) excommunications do not apply in any case when under age 16 and also one must be aware that the penalty of excommunication applies, and are contumaciously done (stubbornly or willfully disobedient to authority), and there are other limitations.
Baltimore Catechism
Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never — even in the past — had the slightest doubt of that fact — what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. … the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister — not being a true priest — has no power to forgive sins. …
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
…
Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:
1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
All that “if you have a doubt, then you must resolve it by joining the Catholic Church” stuff sounds perilously close to what the OP was taught. It’s just got a wee loophole for people who are good dyed-in-the-wool Protestants. I think our current CCC addresses this better, showing that there are ways that Protestants can be, to some extent, part of the true Church without getting into all this doubt stuff.
I’m actually rather glad I did not have to live through the times when the Catholic Church was struggling more with the practical expression of this issue. Seems like it would have caused a world of hurt in many situations.
I’m actually rather glad I did not have to live through the times when the Catholic Church was struggling more with the practical expression of this issue. Seems like it would have caused a world of hurt in many situations.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Heresy is the obsinate denial of a truth revealed by God by a baptized person. If Lutheran dies obstinate in his or her error, that person cannot be saved. A Lutheran is not guilty of heresy who is in good faith mistaken. Such a person would be united to the Church by virtue of his or her baptism and belief in Christ. Assuming that person otherwise was not in a state of mortal sin, he or she would be saved. There’s nothing new about this–it is right in the Baltimore Catechism (there was a picture of people hanging on to Noah’s ark with ropes).
But the truth that belonging to the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation is straight out of Scripture:
We must be baptized (John 3:3) into the one Body in the one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), partake of the one bread as one Body (1 Cor. 10:17), and profess the One Lord, one faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:4-5). Like Noah’s ark, you have to be on board to be saved–as the Bible says, like Noah’s ark in the flood, Baptism now saves (1 Peter 3:20-21), and as I just said, we are baptized into that one Body–so the ark and the Body have the same significance in this regard.
Furthermore, to have fellowship or communion with Christ, you must have fellowship with those who have fellowship with Him (1 John 1:3). We are forbidden, therefore, from schisms and must be united in belief (1 Cor. 1:10).
Furthermore, while Christ is the head of the Church, He has also willed that the Church be led by men. He put St. Peter in charge of His flock (John 21:15-17)–therefore, to be a member of Christ’s flock is to be a member of the flock tended by Peter and his successors.
But the truth that belonging to the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation is straight out of Scripture:
We must be baptized (John 3:3) into the one Body in the one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), partake of the one bread as one Body (1 Cor. 10:17), and profess the One Lord, one faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:4-5). Like Noah’s ark, you have to be on board to be saved–as the Bible says, like Noah’s ark in the flood, Baptism now saves (1 Peter 3:20-21), and as I just said, we are baptized into that one Body–so the ark and the Body have the same significance in this regard.
Furthermore, to have fellowship or communion with Christ, you must have fellowship with those who have fellowship with Him (1 John 1:3). We are forbidden, therefore, from schisms and must be united in belief (1 Cor. 1:10).
Furthermore, while Christ is the head of the Church, He has also willed that the Church be led by men. He put St. Peter in charge of His flock (John 21:15-17)–therefore, to be a member of Christ’s flock is to be a member of the flock tended by Peter and his successors.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Well said. And also as the Baltimore Catechism says, it must be very difficult even for an invincibly ignorant non-Catholic to be saved, since that requires either never committing a mortal sin, or attaining perfect contrition. Those full-grown adults who manage the former are likely very rare, and the need for the latter is unknown to Protestants.
K
Kei
Guest
His divine Nature does not change in this. The human nature that the Son experienced did when Jesus was in time.
Last edited:
H
Hope2
Guest
Your post was soothing to me this Sunday morning. I agree that the idea of truth is thrown into question by the cavalier way it is often used in the Church. I have wrestled with it since I was seven years old.
As I prepare for Church this morning, I feel the usual hint of sadness. I know in my heart that I will never be able to accept as true, the magisterium’s authority as the sole conduit of God’s holy will and judgment.
I have spent all of my childhood, teen years, and adult , childrearing life (I am 68 with three grown children, and five grandchildren),daily seeking God, and praying always for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
There is an old 60s song by the Eagles called “Hotel California.” One of the lyrics goes:
“You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The Church stands firmly in that camp. All are welcome in the Catholic Church. BUT…Any child who is baptized into the Catholic Church, may never leave without pain of heresy and damnation, no matter how sincerely he may make such a decision. Is that not the formal teaching of the CC?
I trust God as the only seat of all truth, Jesus Christ as my teacher, and the Holy Spirit, giver of life, and sole guide for my conscience. No Pope (and I do love Pope Francis) or magesterium (human beings) is capable of acting as the sole conduit of God’s Mind regarding interpreting the scriptures.
Years ago, we baptized our kids into the High Anglican Church because we did not want to to risk their individual God-given consciences being declared heretical / damnable if they should one day disbelieve something the Church teaches to be true. They now worship at both Catholic or hard-to-find High Anglican churches.
I cannot leave my church, nor do I wish to. I will sing joyfully to God at Mass today, in gratitude for His countless blessings. But it makes me sad to know how my church denies me the freedom of my conscience to “reject” certain teachings as mistaken. My children will never have to worship under such a sad doctrine…
As I prepare for Church this morning, I feel the usual hint of sadness. I know in my heart that I will never be able to accept as true, the magisterium’s authority as the sole conduit of God’s holy will and judgment.
I have spent all of my childhood, teen years, and adult , childrearing life (I am 68 with three grown children, and five grandchildren),daily seeking God, and praying always for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
There is an old 60s song by the Eagles called “Hotel California.” One of the lyrics goes:
“You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The Church stands firmly in that camp. All are welcome in the Catholic Church. BUT…Any child who is baptized into the Catholic Church, may never leave without pain of heresy and damnation, no matter how sincerely he may make such a decision. Is that not the formal teaching of the CC?
I trust God as the only seat of all truth, Jesus Christ as my teacher, and the Holy Spirit, giver of life, and sole guide for my conscience. No Pope (and I do love Pope Francis) or magesterium (human beings) is capable of acting as the sole conduit of God’s Mind regarding interpreting the scriptures.
Years ago, we baptized our kids into the High Anglican Church because we did not want to to risk their individual God-given consciences being declared heretical / damnable if they should one day disbelieve something the Church teaches to be true. They now worship at both Catholic or hard-to-find High Anglican churches.
I cannot leave my church, nor do I wish to. I will sing joyfully to God at Mass today, in gratitude for His countless blessings. But it makes me sad to know how my church denies me the freedom of my conscience to “reject” certain teachings as mistaken. My children will never have to worship under such a sad doctrine…
H
Hope2
Guest
Your post was soothing to me this Sunday morning. I agree that the idea of truth is thrown into question by the cavalier way it is often used in the Church. I have wrestled with it since I was seven years old.
I have spent all of my childhood, teen years, and adult , childrearing life (I am 68 with three grown children, and five grandchildren),daily seeking God, and praying always for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
As I prepare for Church this morning, I feel the usual hint of sadness. I know in my heart that I will never be able to accept as true, the magisterium’s authority as the sole conduit of God’s holy will and judgment. I am, therefore, ineligible for salvation according to Church rules.
There is an old 60s song by the Eagles called “Hotel California.” One of the lyrics goes:
“You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The Church stands firmly in that camp. All are welcome in the Catholic Church. BUT…Any child who is baptized into the Catholic Church, may never leave without pain of heresy and damnation, no matter how sincerely he may make such a decision. Is that not the formal teaching of the CC?
I trust God as the only seat of all truth, Jesus Christ as my teacher, and the Holy Spirit, giver of life, and sole guide for my conscience. No Pope (and I do love Pope Francis) or magesterium (human beings) is capable of acting as the sole conduit of God’s Mind regarding interpreting the scriptures.
Years ago, we baptized our kids into the High Anglican Church because we did not want to to risk their individual God-given consciences being declared heretical / damnable if they should one day disbelieve something the Church teaches to be true or decide to join another church. They now worship at both Catholic or hard-to-find High Anglican churches,
I cannot leave my church (nor do I wish to). I will sing joyfully to God at Mass today, in gratitude for His countless blessings. But it makes me sad to know how my church denies me the freedom of my conscience to “reject” certain teachings as mistaken. My children will never have to worship under such a sad doctrine…
I have spent all of my childhood, teen years, and adult , childrearing life (I am 68 with three grown children, and five grandchildren),daily seeking God, and praying always for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
As I prepare for Church this morning, I feel the usual hint of sadness. I know in my heart that I will never be able to accept as true, the magisterium’s authority as the sole conduit of God’s holy will and judgment. I am, therefore, ineligible for salvation according to Church rules.
There is an old 60s song by the Eagles called “Hotel California.” One of the lyrics goes:
“You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The Church stands firmly in that camp. All are welcome in the Catholic Church. BUT…Any child who is baptized into the Catholic Church, may never leave without pain of heresy and damnation, no matter how sincerely he may make such a decision. Is that not the formal teaching of the CC?
I trust God as the only seat of all truth, Jesus Christ as my teacher, and the Holy Spirit, giver of life, and sole guide for my conscience. No Pope (and I do love Pope Francis) or magesterium (human beings) is capable of acting as the sole conduit of God’s Mind regarding interpreting the scriptures.
Years ago, we baptized our kids into the High Anglican Church because we did not want to to risk their individual God-given consciences being declared heretical / damnable if they should one day disbelieve something the Church teaches to be true or decide to join another church. They now worship at both Catholic or hard-to-find High Anglican churches,
I cannot leave my church (nor do I wish to). I will sing joyfully to God at Mass today, in gratitude for His countless blessings. But it makes me sad to know how my church denies me the freedom of my conscience to “reject” certain teachings as mistaken. My children will never have to worship under such a sad doctrine…
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I think it depends on what you mean by “leave”. If you mean ‘not practicing’, then no, damnation does not necessarily follow. The Church just doesn’t think like that anymore.Any child who is baptized into the Catholic Church, may never leave without pain of heresy and damnation, no matter how sincerely he may make such a decision. Is that not the formal teaching of the CC?
There was a document approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 that goes over the issue of officially leaving the Church. I don’t know if it even applies to your average person who doesn’t quite trust the Church for one reason or another, but it seems to say that the canonical penalty for leaving the Church would be quite difficult to apply to the average member of the laity.
@Don_Ruggero would know more about the practical application of that document, or if it even applies to your question - “Is that not the formal teaching of the CC?”
Last edited:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I find this to be such an interesting statement, and one that many people may think but are not bold enough to say out loud. A book could be written on this subject, and the effects a person’s conscience has on their life and the lives of those that they effect.I cannot leave my church (nor do I wish to). I will sing joyfully to God at Mass today, in gratitude for His countless blessings. But it makes me sad to know how my church denies me the freedom of my conscience to “reject” certain teachings as mistaken.
In years past I have had many false assumptions about what the CC teaches, and so I was not very accepting of it’s ability to shepherd me. As I have come around to learn more, I realize that the little disagreements and misunderstandings that I may have with the Church do not necessarily put me in opposition to the Church. And, like you, I have no desire to leave.
Anyway, God Bless you and your family.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Vatican I:
Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.
Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I posted here but I don’t know if my response will see the light of day. It went to “moderator approval” because I used the word d---- in it, I suspect.
Anyway, my post was long so I will summarize:
Anyway, my post was long so I will summarize:
- I couldn’t leave my church any more than I leave my country - the only thing that would get me out of either one would be if me or my family was in danger of death, which is not the case.
- I like Pope Francis but I don’t get hung up on the idea of the Pope or Magisterium being the sole conduit for the voice of God. I see it as more like, a large organization needs leaders at the helm. Usually they get it right and in the cases where I think maybe they don’t quite, I can talk to God about that without having to glorify my own ego by walking out on the Church.
- Whatever caused people to leave back in the days of Luther and Wesley has changed a lot since; also a lot of the purported followers of certain Protestant faiths are not even now following the doctrines that their churches set up upon leaving, but are doing something totally different. I really don’t see the point of forming 1000 little splinter groups. Also, the Anglicans would be the last church I’d join if I were picking Protestant churches because they seem to have come to life not from any real doctrinal difference but from a king’s ego in wanting to propagate his line. Said king didn’t exactly lead a godly life either and destroyed tons of stuff that had not only religious, but also historical, value…not a founder I want to emulate. Plus I’m Irish-American with all the past history baggage that entails.
- It’s a shame that those who leave don’t keep their gifts in the Church and try to effect change from within. I would rather have dissenting people who stay in the Church than 1000 weak splinters.
- In any event, in the end we will all be facing Jesus ourselves and the Pope and Magisterium won’t be standing there, so I guess we all have to do what we think is right. For me it is to stay.
H
Hope2
Guest
Thank you. I have had lengthy talks with my pastor. He just keeps saying that God loves me just as I am because I am doing my best to follow the direction of the Holy Spirit.
That is comforting, but it doesn’t speak to the Church teaching (threat) that if I can’t accept a teaching as true, then that’s tough, because if indeed I am a baptized Catholic, I will be damned.
That is comforting, but it doesn’t speak to the Church teaching (threat) that if I can’t accept a teaching as true, then that’s tough, because if indeed I am a baptized Catholic, I will be damned.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.