Debate CA vs. SBC?

[duckbill]

duckbill,

If you have the time, read this article especially those sections under the titles “Epithets on Boston Common” and “Dueling Pontiffs?”…

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm

Thanks for the article I think I read it before.

This part of the article doesn’t seem correct:
“One of the battle grounds of the controversy concerned the different writings of the Fathers of the Early Church on the matter of . Patristic scholars generally agree that there exist two classes of statements on this issue in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church: first, a relatively small sampling of restrictive statements, which appear to exclude from salvation all those not fully members of the Church, and, secondly, more frequent testimonies that define church membership in broader terms.”

and Father Most is correct saying:

1.First, the Fathers must be nearly unanimous on the subject in question at least one time in history.

2.Second, they must admit to be relating something they themselves have received from the beginning; that is, from Christ and the Apostles.

1. Finally, the Church must check the proposed finding against the entire deposit of faith, of which she is the custodian and judge

The article quotes "The Faith of the Early Fathers"by William Jurgens but Jurgens says the opposite of the article about explicit membership and seems a little confused at why excuse for ignorance was missing most often:

“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. **But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant **as to constitute revelation.”---- Fr. William Jurgens (A major researcher of the Father’s of the Church)-- “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.

Jurgens seems to admit that Sacramental Baptism seemed to be the Universal ( Catholic ) teaching and exception for ignorance seems to be uncommon.

"‘Pope Pelagius I, promulgated for the universal Church in the year 557, affirms the de fide doctrine that on judgment day, God will hand over “to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire” all of the wicked, who (he says) consist of “[those] who either did not know the way of the Lord, or, having known it, abandoned it, ensnared by transgressions of various kinds”. (qui viam Domini aut non agnoverunt aut cognitam diversis capti praevaricationibus reliquerunt” (DS 228a, my translation and emphasis). In other words, it is proposed as de fide by Pope Pelagius that a pagan’s or Jew’s ignorance of the Christian Gospel at death does not in any way diminish the certainty that he will be damned.’ (“CAN AN ‘IMPLICIT FAITH’ IN CHRIST BE SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION?” by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S, Pg. 9)

also DS#1349a.
** Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:**

“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.

**“A.**  A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the** mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means**, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”[xciii]

Notice not precept. “Means” means absolutely necessary precept would allow exceptions. Lick Confession is precept. If you never need to confess Like some saints e.g. BVMary would be an exceptiion

 Another question was posed at the same time and answered the same way.

& DS #1349b.
Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:

“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes… although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

“A.  A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.”

See the deeper one looks into this subject the more teh Feeney position becomes clear…

 

[duckbill]

Not a debate, but Karl Keating (founder of this website) wrote about Fr. Feeney in 2004 and was careful to note that the excommunication was due to disobedience and not what he was teaching per se. Link here.

Thanks for the link I did read this before.

And I do not agree with Feeney and his racial stances he also had a big prejudice against Englishmen and seemed to make uncharitable comments often.

I don’t even agree completely with his theory around Baptism of Desire BOD. But his positions are closer to the Church’s age long tradition than what most hold today.

While knowing the short comings of Feeney is important.I think Karel was using an ad hominem argument against Feeney. I Noticed that Karel didn’t mention that the Church approved 2 communities. Nor did he address the dogmatic statements that say their position is right. Like Don Scotus he may have been an imperfect instrument of Grace. He predicted the los of Faith in the USA when everyone thought it impossible.

 

[banjo]

The article quotes "The Faith of the Early Fathers"by William Jurgens but Jurgens says the opposite of the article about explicit membership and seems a little confused at why excuse for ignorance was missing most often:

“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. **But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant **as to constitute revelation.”---- Fr. William Jurgens (A major researcher of the Father’s of the Church)-- “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.

Jurgens seems to admit that Sacramental Baptism seemed to be the Universal ( Catholic ) teaching and exception for ignorance seems to be uncommon.

This part of the footnote from Jurgens which you are quoting seems, when taken by itself, rather final. However, I believe that quality is diminished if you read footnote 31 a little beyond where you ended your quote. The commentary continues as follows:

“Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition. St. Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas’ first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.”

 

[duckbill]

This part of the footnote from Jurgens which you are quoting seems, when taken by itself, rather final. However, I believe that quality is diminished if you read footnote 31 a little beyond where you ended your quote. The commentary continues as follows:

“Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition. St. Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas’ first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.”

I hope I didn’t give you the impression the Fr. Jurgens was a supporter of the Feeney position. I know he supports baptism of desire but in the quote I gave I was not misquoting or taking him out of context in the sense that the Church Fathers*** are*** almost unanimous in saying JOHN 3:5 is to be taken literally and he even says it is such strong evidence that it is a Divine Revelation.(The exact opposite of the statement about the Church Fathers in the article linked above)

Now because Fr. Jurgens has been conditioned like so many to think that the Feeney position is not acceptable by a Catholic in good standing (Do you think this too?). Although, as shown above, it is not popular, but it is also not heretical and is a possible understanding of the Church teaching and two approved orders of the Church hold it. So he tries to find a reason why the almost unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers is wrong (Which is contrary to understanding them see-- Fr. Most point 1. above link here post 21).

Now see TRENT–

There are no exceptions mentioned in Canons II & V on Baptism but on the other hand

CHAPTER VIII.–Eucharist
On the use of this admirable Sacrament. :

CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with** the precept** of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

We need to make some distinctions between two kinds of necessity,

• the necessity of means (necessitas medii) --Baptism
• the necessity of precept (necessitas præcepti)–Eucharist

The Eucharist can not be a necessity as a means to salvation “For such a necessity could be established only on the supposition that Communion per se constituted (/brings) a person in(to) the state of grace or that this state could not be preserved without Communion. Neither supposition is correct. Not the first, for the simple reason that the Blessed Eucharist, being a sacrament of the living, presupposes the state of sanctifying grace; not the second, because in case of necessity, such as might arise, e.g., in a long sea-voyage, the Eucharistic graces may be supplied by actual graces.”–Written by J. Pohle. Transcribed by Charles Sweeney, SJ.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V. Published 1909. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
link here

But Jurgens argument falters ( besides not accepting the almost unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers) because the this argument have missed a crucial difference in the wording of these two verses.

John 6:53- “Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves…” scripturetext.com/john/6-53.htm

John 3:5- "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT ONE be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!"scripturetext.com/john/3-5.htm

  Our Lord, when speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John 6:53, does not say: “unless ONE eat the flesh of the Son of man…”  He says: “Except YOU…”  His words, therefore, are clearly intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not everyone.  Since the people to whom He was speaking could eventually receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved.  This applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches infallibly in Trent above.  But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every person.

This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written-- literally.

 

[banjo]

This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written-- literally.

For my part, I’m satisfied to let the Church have the final say on this matter. Regarding salvation outside of the Church, this is what the Church said at Vatican II in the document Lumen Gentium……
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.*

 

[duckbill]

For my part, I’m satisfied to let the Church have the final say on this matter. Regarding salvation outside of the Church, this is what the Church said at Vatican II in the document Lumen Gentium……
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

So are you saying that this quote means there is salvation outside the Church?

Because in continuity of all the Church teachings this must be understood as:

’ yes, all of human history is part of God’s plan, which may allow people to fall into sin and infidelity even though sin is not God’s Will he allows it and it is part of His world plan of salvation. God will save those who’ --:

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation (Actual Grace) to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace (Actual Grace) strive to live a good life.”"
In other words:
’ Those of good will doing the best they can, by God’s Providence. and by their response to the Actual Graces He sends, will be lead to join his Church. So even though someone is not a Catholic we should treat all of them with respect and love because ALL have the potential by God Providence of entering the Church before they die, either by inspiration or receiving an Angel (Acts 10:4) or a teacher to them.(Acts 8: 26) so they may receive the Sacrament of Baptism, thus entering the Church’

Because Sanctifying Grace is not possible for those outside the Church:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He the Holy Spirit] yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body."Pope Pius XII MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI–“On the Mystical Body of Christ,” 1943; #57.

and only the Baptised are members of the Church:

“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration **( i.e.Sacrament of Baptism) **and profess the true faith.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943; # 22.

and the Council of Trent agrees:

"The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism.For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ " Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap.# 2.

 

[banjo]

So are you saying that this quote means there is salvation outside the Church?

I’m not saying anything. I’m simply posting some things that you are omitting. Things which present, IMO, another side of the issue. However, I do have a question for you.

Imagine all the people who occupied the Americas between the time of Christ and say the 16th century. They had no knowledge of Christ. They were unknown to the European world. They had no opportunity to be evangelized. What would you say was their eternal fate?

 

[duckbill]

I’m not saying anything. I’m simply posting some things that you are omitting. Things which present, IMO, another side of the issue. However, I do have a question for you.

This doesn’t seem that you are being completely honest here. What other side is there?

Imagine all the people who occupied the Americas between the time of Christ and say the 16th century. They had no knowledge of Christ. They were unknown to the European world. They had no opportunity to be evangelized. What would you say was their eternal fate?

First you tell me your answer to this question and then I’ll give you mine.

 

[banjo]

This doesn’t seem that you are being completely honest here. What other side is there?

I have been nothing but completely honest in my posts in which I have been trying to point out that you have been omitting statements by the Church and by Popes which don’t slam the door on the idea of the possibility of salvation for those outside of the Church.

Your post seem to say that no one other than a baptized Catholic has the possiblity of salvation. You supplied a variety of quotes from various popes, websites, CCC……none of which contained statements that people who are outside of the Church also have the chance for salvation. Then I posted to you the Michael J. Mazza paper.

From your post #21 you commented: “This part of the article doesn’t seem correct:
“One of the battle grounds of the controversy concerned the different writings of the Fathers of the Early Church on the matter of . Patristic scholars generally agree that there exist two classes of statements on this issue in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church: first, a relatively small sampling of restrictive statements, which appear to exclude from salvation all those not fully members of the Church, and, secondly, more frequent testimonies that define church membership in broader terms.”

Now the game begins: “This doesn’t seem correct.” …It also doesn’t agree with your point of view. In that same post you only partially quoted from footnote 31 which led me to post the portion of the footnote you omitted. That portion doesn’t offer your premise strong support. I pointed this out to you in my post #23 and you responded “Now because Fr. Jurgens has been conditioned like so many to think that the Feeney position is not acceptable by a Catholic in good standing (Do you think this too?). Although, as shown above, it is not popular, but it is also not heretical and is a possible understanding of the Church teaching”

Now you maintain that Fr. Jurgens has been “conditioned” and you defend the Feeney position. I simply responded that I would be content to allow the Church to have the final word and quoted from Lumen Gentium 16 in post #25.

Your response to that was to “interpret” a portion of LG 16……In other words:
’ Those of good will doing the best they can, by God’s Providence. and by their response to the Actual Graces He sends, will be lead to join his Church. So even though someone is not a Catholic we should treat all of them with respect and love because ALL have the potential by God Providence of entering the Church before they die, either by inspiration or receiving an Angel (Acts 10:4) or a teacher to them.(Acts 8: 26) so they may receive the Sacrament of Baptism, thus entering the Church’

If the Church had intended to mean your interpretation in LG 16, the Church would have said this in LG 16. There is no interpretation necessary in this paragraph, it is unambiguous. Up to this point I have made no specific statement about salvation outside the Church, I am trying to point out to you that the Church has said other things which are not in line with your quotes.

For my part, I agree with the following statement and I would draw your attention to the last sentence which is mostly a comment by Pope Pius XII. But please, read the entire paragraph and not just the last sentence.

On August 8, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued the Protocol Suprema haec sacra about which Michael J. Mazza writes……. “The protocol summarizes the pope’s teaching by saying that while membership in the Church is indeed an absolute requirement for salvation, such membership does not necessarily have to be visible to the human eye, and can be characterized by even “desire and longing,” whether explicit (in the case of catechumens) or implicit (in the case of the invincibly ignorant). At the same time, however, the pope affirms that those souls in the latter case “cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.” The protocol concludes: With these wise words Pius XII reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally in every religion.”

That is the other side.

Hopefully I have satisfactorily stated my point of view and the purpose of my posting. Now, unless you feel uncomfortable about giving an answer, please respond to my question about the inhabitants in the Americas.

 

[duckbill]

If the Church had intended to mean your interpretation in LG 16, the Church would have said this in LG 16. There is no interpretation necessary in this paragraph, it is unambiguous. Up to this point I have made no specific statement about salvation outside the Church, I am trying to point out to you that the Church has said other things which are not in line with your quotes.

 

[duckbill]

From your post #21 you commented: “This part of the article doesn’t seem correct:

“One of the battle grounds of the controversy concerned the different writings of the Fathers of the Early Church on the matter of . Patristic scholars generally agree that there exist two classes of statements on this issue in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church: first, a relatively small sampling of restrictive statements, which appear to exclude from salvation all those not fully members of the Church, and, secondly, more frequent testimonies that define church membership in broader terms.”

So are you saying that I misquoted or changed the meaning of his conclusion, that it is the almost unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and a tantamount to a divine revelation? Here is what I quoted again:

“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again . . . etc.’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. ( =other side?) But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation.”- his words not mine that he seems confused by an almost unanimous consensis of the Cjurch Fathers] (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.)

to say your article doesn’t seem right-since it had no footnote or authority to make this statement:“a relatively small sampling of restrictive statements, which appear to exclude from salvation all those not fully members of the Church’” seems wrong since Jurgen says the exact opposite.

Now the game begins: “This doesn’t seem correct.” …It also doesn’t agree with your point of view. In that same post you only partially quoted from footnote 31 which led me to post the portion of the footnote you omitted. That portion doesn’t offer your premise strong support. I pointed this out to you in my post #23 and you responded “Now because Fr. Jurgens has been conditioned like so many to think that the Feeney position is not acceptable by a Catholic in good standing (Do you think this too?). Although, as shown above, it is not popular, but it is also not heretical and is a possible understanding of the Church teaching”

 

[duckbill]

Thank you for the post but I still don’t get what is* your * other side you are talking about is. Could you tell me in your own words what you understand from the above quotes and past dialog?

And are you saying that the Feeney position is not possible for a Catholic to be in good standing with the Church?

I have been nothing but completely honest in my posts in which I have been trying to point out that you have been omitting statements by the Church and by Popes which don’t slam the door on the idea of the possibility of salvation for those outside of the Church.

So is this what you believe? :
“which don’t slam the door on the idea of the possibility of salvation for those outside of the Church.”

I didn’t mean to offend you, I’m sorry if my choice of words were not well chosen. But The above quote seems to be yours I think (in blue) on this issue and this is what I meant by “not being completely honest”. You seem to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Of course you may have some subtleties to your argument and I don’t want to pin you down with one slip of the “tongue.” that is why I asked you if that is what you believe in your own words.

Your post seem to say that no one other than a baptized Catholic has the possiblity of salvation. You supplied a variety of quotes from various popes, websites, CCC……none of which contained statements that people who are outside of the Church also have the chance for salvation. Then I posted to you the Michael J. Mazza paper.

Everyone has a possibility at salvation by God’s providence but not outside the Catholic Church which can only be entered by sacrament of baptism.( BTW this is not my opinion this is what the Church teaches. If it were up to me everyone would go to heaven! I don’t necessarily like it I 'm just trying to be honest.) This is not to say that that is all that is required for salvation and all Catholic will go to heaven.

Since the late 1700’s to 2009 this issue has become clouded and confusing. So I don’t blame you for being confused. It took me many years study. Like Scott Hahn I would read both books for the Feeney position and those against. The Feeney position always seemed stronger. Once I learned there are Church APPROVED groups holding his position it took a load off my shoulders.

 

[banjo]

Thank you for the post but I still don’t get what is* your *other side you are talking about is. Could you tell me in your own words what you understand from the above quotes and past dialog?
So is this what you believe? :
“which don’t slam the door on the idea of the possibility of salvation for those outside of the Church.”

I didn’t mean to offend you, I’m sorry if my choice of words were not well chosen. But The above quote seems to be yours I think (in blue) on this issue and this is what I meant by “not being completely honest”. You seem to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Of course you may have some subtleties to your argument and I don’t want to pin you down with one slip of the “tongue.” that is why I asked you if that is what you believe in your own words.

Regarding what I believe I will restate what I said in my last post…

For my part, I agree with the following statement and I would draw your attention to the last sentence which is mostly a comment by Pope Pius XII. But please, read the entire paragraph and not just the last sentence.

On August 8, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued the Protocol Suprema haec sacra about which Michael J. Mazza writes……. “The protocol summarizes the pope’s teaching by saying that while membership in the Church is indeed an absolute requirement for salvation, such membership does not necessarily have to be visible to the human eye, and can be characterized by even “desire and longing,” whether explicit (in the case of catechumens) or implicit (in the case of the invincibly ignorant).

Did you read this? I’m not saying salvation is possible for people outside of the Church. When I used the phrase, “outside of the Church” I was referring to those whom we commonly refer to as ‘non-Catholics’. Please refer to what I boldfaced in the above quote.

I am aware of the councils you cited in your post #30….to reiterate my point……you are citing these but ignoring other statements such as that which follows……….

Pope Pius IX Quano Conficiamur Moerore, 1863….7. “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.”

I’m not saying you have misquoted anything, I’m saying you are ignoring statements which don’t agree with your point of view. I’m not inventing these things, they exist.

I regret that I have failed to communicate to you what I referred to as the “other side”…perhaps this last will help. I hope that I have answered your questions, it’s a little awkward since I never have been able to paste multiple quotes…I guess I’m not using the right gizmo.

If you have any other questions or clarifications regarding my posts, I’ll try to clear them up. Am I to understand by your silence that you would rather not answer my question about the inhabitants of the Americas?

 

[BSHoop96]

Well the whole idea of forums ( like CAF) is what debates are. There are many different kinds views that are exchanged and it gives two camps the possibility to present their best arguments. Usually the side who has the weaker argument becomes clearer. From what you are saying, you seem closer to the Sophist argument that truth isn’t knowable but persuasion and manipulation is the real art.

Socrates and Plato were of the other opinion; they thought by asking questions and demanding answers in a logical fashion (debate) truth can be known and even more so after the debate.

If two positions challenge each other face to face then I believe all benefit.

I suspect that CA has the weaker argument since most of the discussions on the Forums are won by the Feeney position; that is one of the main reason for myself growing closer to the Feeney position. The opposition is just too weak.

Why are you relying on either? As a Catholic rely on the Church’s position which you can find in the Catechism. I’m assuming you are Catholic. I didn’t check your profile.

 

[duckbill]

On August 8, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued the Protocol Suprema haec sacra about which Michael J. Mazza writes……. “The protocol summarizes the pope’s teaching by saying that while membership in the Church is indeed an absolute requirement for salvation, such membership does not necessarily have to be visible to the human eye, and can be characterized by even “desire and longing,” whether explicit (in the case of catechumens) or implicit (in the case of the invincibly ignorant).

I acknowledge there is a tradition (small “t” ) for the possible salvation of catechumens but it is neither a defined dogma nor the majority consensus of the Church Fathers. so there is grounds to doubt it. Augustine retracted many of his statements referring to this possibility. Saint Ambrose was very clear on the absolute necessity of water baptism in his written theology. He one time gave a sermon that he seemed to shy away from this position and this was used as one the foundations for St Aquinas to accept it. The problem arises: was the sermon effected by human respect or was he misquoted by the one transcribing the sermon; was he referring to grace and baptism of water as the same; or was he making an act of faith that the emperor wanted baptism so received it? Take your pick. Because it is the almost unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation and our Lord Jesus Christ agrees( Jn-3:5)

The above (and it seems yourself if I haven’t miss understood you) becomes problematic when the tradition of the possible salvation of catechumen is expanded to allow not only catechumens but the ignorant who have not been baptized, nor have any desire to do so, or even heard the Gospel. There is** no **tradition that ignorance can provide saving grace i.e. Sanctifying Grace. It can excuse from sin but not confer grace.

As for Protocol 122/49, it was:

1. a letter written from one Bishop to another
2. it was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and so was not an official act of the Holy See.
3. Subsequently not being an act of the Holy See it was never signed by Pius XII either.

So it is more than an exaggeration to say that the letter has substantial weight as a piece of magisterial teaching and to be a document of Pius XII.

And if it was as you seem to think then why would the Church with the knowledge of CDF approve three ( new info) religious orders since the time of the Protocol holding the Feeney position?Saint Benedict Abbey-- 1974, Mother Theresa, MICM–1988, Br. Thomas Augustine’s group,–2003
catholicvox.blogspot.com/search/label/Feeneyites%20Status%20in%20Church

Pope Pius IX Quano Conficiamur Moerore, 1863….7… 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.”

The above quote by Pius IX is clearly heretical (LOL) Well the correct translation isn’t but the one you posted is. Pius IX wrote that God would not allow a person to be “punished with eternal** torments** who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” He used the Latin word suppliciis (“torments”)* not poenis (“punishments”).
It makes big difference because if it were punishment he would be contradicting the Councils of Lyons (Denz. 464) and Florence. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. (Denz. 693). Original Sin is not deliberate sin. And he would be preaching semi-pelagianism if it said punishment.

The next two paragraphs sound more like Father Feeney’s understanding than yours
:8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church…
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love… First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.

People who go to hell outside the Church are those who resist grace (actual grace)

I understand you have trouble believing the Feeney position. It took me years of study. LIke Scott Hahn every argument I used against it was defended by a REALLY strong answer, till finally I had to admit they are right. Do I agree with the Feeneyites that Fr. Feeney was a “saint” no and I don’t accept the traditionalist position that reform was not needed before Vatican II. There was something wrong before Vat.II from all the stories older friends of mine told of the cruel “discipline” by nuns and brothers. I think Vatican II was controled by Modernist and even Cardinal Ratzinger would agree with that. But I don’t think it contains heresy as long as it is understood in continuity of the Faith.

 

[banjo]

I acknowledge there is a tradition (small “t” ) for the possible salvation of catechumens but it is neither a defined dogma nor the majority consensus of the Church Fathers. so there is grounds to doubt it.

This dialogue is getting us no where. I close by asking God’s blessings upon you and reaffirming my adherence to Vatican II; Lumen Gentium 16…

“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”

 

[banjo]

This dialogue is getting us no where. I close by asking God’s blessings upon you and reaffirming my adherence to Vatican II; Lumen Gentium 16…

Postscript…I also wanted to leave you with this article written by Fr. William Most

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt

 

[duckbill]

This dialogue is getting us no where. I close by asking God’s blessings upon you and reaffirming my adherence to Vatican II; Lumen Gentium 16…

“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”

I call your attention from the above quote:

“Whatever truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.”

    So, a person of good will involved in invincible ignorance can indeed be saved, but not where he is. The Council continues:

    [it is to such persons that the Church] "...to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men... painstakingly fosters her missionary work."

to understnad it otherwise would be to go against the WHOLE continuity of the Faith. Even the arch-liberal Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. is honest enough to admit this:

"…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, **and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. ****In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire. " ** (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, Translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40,41, 57 Or. 40, 23 (PG 36, 3890), 58 ‘Sermo contra dilationem Baptismi’ (PG 46, 424), 59 Cf. Fr. Hoffmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus (Munich 1933), pp.221 sqq., 381 sqq., 464 sqq., New York, The Seabury Press, 1975.)

 

[duckbill]

Postscript…I also wanted to leave you with this article written by Fr. William Most

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt

As for Fr. Most,
while I respect Fr. Most in many of his efforts to fight for orthodoxy. He seemed to have a closed mind and a vendetta against Fr. Feeney’s Position. I wouldn’t like to call him a liar out of respect for his work but I fail to see how in the world he came up with this (quote below) and even repeated it after being corrected by the “Feeneyites”:

“he [Feeney] insisted that
all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he
had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell.
Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their
names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they
never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g.”

This shows a lot of bad will on Most’s part for not being honest. Many people have weaknesses and prejudices that get the better of them sometimes, so, I don’t know how guilty Fr. Most was in this false accusation but it is a complete falsehood and COMPLETELY undermines anything he has to say on the subject. Fr. Feeney nor any of his supporters EVER implied or wrote anything like this.

At any rate here is a response to Most since many seem to reguard him and his articles against Fr. Feeney’ s position:catholicvox.blogspot.com/search/label/EENS%3A%20Defense%20%20against%20Fr.%20Most

 

[banjo]

So, a person of good will involved in invincible ignorance can indeed be saved, but not where he is. The Council continues: