Difference between "Schismatic" and "Protestant"

[Jehannette]

Jehannette,

You are conveniently cherry-picking those parts of the Vatican’s letter to make the Church mean what you want Her to mean. The letter is merely setting the stage for what follows, which you omitted completely, giving the reader here a meaning that it is not full Church teaching whatsoever.

The reference to *From the Housetops *refers to the Fr. Feeney periodical that was being circulated from their Center. This letter was an official denial that what the periodical taught is the same as what the Church teaches. And you seem to have adopted the Feeneyite position completely.

No, I have not, although, I am a great admire of Father Feeney. Having said that, I think that he should have gone to Rome, however, I do believe in both “implicit faith” and/or “implicit desire,” both of which were explicitly taught by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa. Note, however, that the Second Vatican Council, in referencing the Holy Office letter, dropped the phrase “votum implicitum”:

marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf

In any case, I do not have a problem with “implicit desire” as long, of course, that it is animated by perfect charity. Remember, that Florence while at Basel also taught:

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following…

I am not defending the “From the Housetops” article, which I have read, by the way. Father Feeney’s speculations on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in Water in his “Bread of Life” came later on (about 5 years) after the “Boston heresy” case. I affirm both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood at least as being possibilities, so I am hardly a “hard-core Feeneyite.” I also admit that the idea of “universal salvation” is something that the Church has never formally condemned, although, the Ordinary Magisterium has consistently taught that not everyone will be saved.

Back up and post the very next paragraph following the one in your post.

And thus follows more explicit teaching regarding this desire, all of which you avoided posting, and which gave an untrue meaning to that Lettter if you truncate it as you have done.

I posted the link. People can read the letter themselves. As for the part that you highlight in bold, I agree with it:

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

So, even if one is not a formal member of the Catholic Church, one must at least be “united to Her”.

 

[Sirach2]

Pretty slippery, Jehannette,

Posting a link written by Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, a member of St. Benedict Center (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) in Still River, Massachusetts.

I suppoe you want me to read 21 pages and swallow the jargon from another Feeneyite. How does what he wrote qualify to trump Church teaching? Why are you so persistent in having us believe your belief and that of a St. Benedict Center member?

Pull the pertinent quote from your link and spell out what you want to say, so we don’t spend a good amount of time reading and guessing your intent in posting it. Thank you.

Wanna run that by me again about not being a hard core Feeneyite?

 

[Jehannette]

Pretty slippery, Jehannette,

Posting a link written by Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, a member of St. Benedict Center (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) in Still River, Massachusetts.

I suppoe you want me to read 21 pages and swallow the jargon from another Feeneyite. How does what he wrote qualify to trump Church teaching? Why are you so persistent in having us believe your belief and that of a St. Benedict Center member?

Pull the pertinent quote from your link and spell out what you want to say, so we don’t spend a good amount of time reading and guessing your intent in posting it. Thank you.

Wanna run that by me again about not being a hard core Feeneyite?

Brother Thomas Mary Sennott is, of course, deceased. He wrote a book titled “They Fought the Good Fight” (1987) which received an Imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy J. Harrington of Worcester, so one can hardly accuse him of being unorthodox. “Hard-core Feeneyites” deny Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, say that Saint Thomas was wrong (or even, that he was a heretic), etc. I do not make such claims. It may be that there are individuals in Paradise who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism in Water. I do not know; I don’t think anyone else does either. As I have already said, I think that such is certainly possible. Ditto for those who are outside the formal, canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church.

 

[Sirach2]

You didn’t answer my question.

What in that 21-page document did you want to point out to substantiate whatever claim you were making in posting it?

 

[Jehannette]

You didn’t answer my question.

What in that 21-page document did you want to point out to substantiate whatever claim you were making in posting it?

That Vatican II quoted from the Holy Office letter but not verbatim. As I said, the Council dropped the phrase “votum implicitum”. That’s why I posted the article. Brother Thomas Mary did that analysis, not me. I don’t think that such is in dispute.

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette,

I understand you to say that the Church officially teaches EENS according to Fr. Feeney and Br. Sennott’s publications, simply because they did not use the words “implicit desire” (votum implicitum) in the Vatican II document LG. Boy O boy, is that a stretch and a leap into private interpretation.

Looking up the book you mentioned written by Br. Sennott, I find this description in the only book review submitted at Amazon.

In this book written by Thomas Mary Sennott, we have compiled for us the writings of two great theologians that spent their life defending Catholic doctrine. They are Orestes Brownson and Father Feeney. And we can read their positions in their own words. These two men lived over a centaury apart in the U.S.A. and had a similarity of thought. They exposed how some were willing to compromise on doctrine for the sake of political correctness. And this point is shown to us in the attempted repudiation, even going on to this day, of the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and a minimization of devotion to Our Lady as the Mediatrix of All Graces. You will see that this is not a new defense that was required because of the last Vatican Council. This is a very interesting read.

I can guess the entire thrust of that book. And I trust you have read it, since you purport that there is an imprimi potest. Maybe so. But these individuals’ interpretation cannot be held as the summit of Truth overriding the Church’s teaching. I sincerely hope you would cease promoting their views as if the Church is in agreement with them. Obviously, you hold this view in high regard, or you wouldn’t be posting their material so fluently.

 

[Jehannette]

Jehannette,

I understand you to say that the Church officially teaches EENS according to Fr. Feeney and Br. Sennott’s publications, simply because they did not use the words “implicit desire” (votum implicitum) in the Vatican II document LG. Boy O boy, is that a stretch and a leap into private interpretation.

I have never made this claim; however, Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome, a status which most of his followers enjoy to this very day!

 

[Sirach2]

Again, making the implicated leap that since Feeney died in communion, therefore the Church agrees with his teaching. Nevertheless, the Church was pastorally sensitive as our merciful Shepherd, in allowing him to die in Her graces. None of us knows the details, nor do I care to. Let’s stop equating that due to A, therefore B.

Interesting that you skipped over acknowlegment of reading the book you mentioned.

We simply need to follow the documents as the Church has presented in her teaching, whether or not they include words that you deem should be present. It our obedience and submission of faith. I deeply grieve when others approach in order to downplay Her teachings to favor those who have never been invested with the teaching Office that flows from Divine Authority. Wouldn’t it be prudent to simply keep this to yourself, if you hold such ideas? Are you seeking a following who will stand up and fight the Church?

 

[Sirach2]

On second thought, maybe it’s not the Church you are interested in opposing? Could it be a deep antipathy toward other denominations? Or perhaps the Jews, similar to the radical opposition Fr. Feeney held toward them, not only in heart, but in public word and deed?

I don’t want to even surmise any of your intentions, since we are forbidden to judge, but it is apparent from your many posts on this issue that you do have an agenda of some sort that will not allow you to rest in peace.