How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[mgrfin]

They are NOT in “good standing” if they personally dis-believe a truth of the faith.

If you wish to say that they, unlike the unfortunate Fr. Feeney, have never been excommunicated, this much is presumably true.

If you wish also to say that the people at the Center are in “good standing” (meaning not under penalty) but the Center has no affiliation whatsoever with the Roman Catholic Church, that much might also be true.

But–attempting to leave us with the impression that their error is somehow “accepted” in the eyes of the Church–false, false, false…

DJim

I have been giving some thought to Fr. Feeney and his followers.

1. He was excommunicated but returned to the Church. The issues relating to his excommunication may have not been doctrinally related.
2. When he returned to the Church, apparently, he did not have to retract any of his statements.
3. I am expecting in the future Benedict to come out with a more defined statement, or, Cardinal Levada of the CDF to make further statements.
   4, Feenyites cling to their doctrine. Benedict is a theologian and former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
   he knows what he is doing.
   But I don’t know where this is going. Non-Catholics may not be happy, and some of the windows may be closing.
   mgrfin

 

[DJim]

I have been giving some thought to Fr. Feeney and his followers.

1. He was excommunicated but returned to the Church. The issues relating to his excommunication may have not been doctrinally related.
2. When he returned to the Church, apparently, he did not have to retract any of his statements.
3. I am expecting in the future Benedict to come out with a more defined statement, or, Cardinal Levada of the CDF to make further statements.
   4, Feenyites cling to their doctrine. Benedict is a theologian and former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
   he knows what he is doing.
   But I don’t know where this is going. Non-Catholics may not be happy, and some of the windows may be closing.
   mgrfin

1. The reconciliation with the Church took place at a time in which, as I understand it, Feeney was frail and in poor health. The penalty of excommunication related directly to his disobedience.
2. I believe there was a question whether Feeney’s frailty played a role in what he was and was not asked to do when reconciled.
3. The “more defined statement” came out at the time of the Second Vatican Council. There’s nothing left to say…
4. As long as Feeneyites cling to doctrinal error, they will remain in error. There’s nothing to be done except pray that they recant the error and listen once again to the living Magisterium of the Church…

DJim

 

[bobzills]

None of this in any way alters what I said in my previous post–the links you provide to antiquated letters from former officials prove nothing different from what I’ve asserted.

But you are correct on one thing: EVERYONE–including the St. Benedict Center–has a right to exist apart from the Roman Catholic Church without having to change doctrinal belief.

Can’t argue with you on that…

DJim

There are two different things:

1. Exist apart from the RCC.
2. Exist in a state of canonical regularisation with the RCC
   St. Benedict Center is in situation (2).
   You can check with them on this point.

 

[DJim]

There are two different things:

1. Exist apart from the RCC.
2. Exist in a state of canonical regularisation with the RCC
   St. Benedict Center is in situation (2).
   You can check with them on this point.

Actually, they exist in both conditions, but only admit to being in one.

You have no reason to know this, but I am quite familiar with the heterodox work of the “St. Benedict Center”…

They called their nemesis, the late, and faith-filled, Fr. William Most a “liberal Catholic”! And they say the same about the “New Advent” web site.

Relevance to this thread: again, we see that an error in the beginning is an error indeed–private interpretation of the Magisterium is a very dangerous thing…

The “Papal Bull” meshes perfectly with what is taught today…

DJim

PS: Can we be done with this thread?

 

[mgrfin]

Actually, they exist in both conditions, but only admit to being in one.

You have no reason to know this, but I am quite familiar with the heterodox work of the “St. Benedict Center”…

They called their nemesis, the late, and faith-filled, Fr. William Most a “liberal Catholic”! And they say the same about the “New Advent” web site.

Relevance to this thread: again, we see that an error in the beginning is an error indeed–private interpretation of the Magisterium is a very dangerous thing…

The “Papal Bull” meshes perfectly with what is taught today…

DJim

PS: Can we be done with this thread?

I’m havin a problem with this: “Private interpretation of SS” and “Private interpretation of the Magisterium”. Maybe I’m simplistic in this. I read scripture all the time, and understand to the best of my ability, and also in accord with the teaching of the CC. Same with the Magisterium. I don’t have the Congregation of DF at my shoulder, but I don’t understand what is the prohibition here???

 

[DJim]

I’m havin a problem with this: “Private interpretation of SS” and “Private interpretation of the Magisterium”. Maybe I’m simplistic in this. I read scripture all the time, and understand to the best of my ability, and also in accord with the teaching of the CC. Same with the Magisterium. I don’t have the Congregation of DF at my shoulder, but I don’t understand what is the prohibition here???

The Cathechism of the Catholic Church teaches us something obvious–that we are not supposed to form our conscience contrary to the moral law or to the Magisterium of the Church.

“Private interpretation of the Magisterium” that results in personal belief contrary to the Magisterium is known as "dissent.* Dissent from Church teaching is wrong.

So, it’s one thing to “interpret” a teaching “privately,” but then, when we find out the living magisterium of the Church has interpreted it differently, we are supposed to be obedient and revise our personal interpretation.

Feeney did not do so–rather, he was publicly dissenting in a way that drew others into his error. Not good.

Does this help? IOW, we always need to check our “private” belief against the public teaching of the Church. And if they don’t match, the Church teaching wins, not ours…

DJim

 

[mgrfin]

The Cathechism of the Catholic Church teaches us something obvious–that we are not supposed to form our conscience contrary to the moral law or to the Magisterium of the Church.

“Private interpretation of the Magisterium” that results in personal belief contrary to the Magisterium is known as "dissent.* Dissent from Church teaching is wrong.

So, it’s one thing to “interpret” a teaching “privately,” but then, when we find out the living magisterium of the Church has interpreted it differently, we are supposed to be obedient and revise our personal interpretation.

Feeney did not do so–rather, he was publicly dissenting in a way that drew others into his error. Not good.

Does this help? IOW, we always need to check our “private” belief against the public teaching of the Church. And if they don’t match, the Church teaching wins, not ours…

DJim

That is exactly what I believe. My ‘private interpretation of SS and the Magisterium’ hopefully are always in conformity with what the Church teaches.
mgrfin

 

[napad]

The problem comes at the begining of this thread. We have 3 INFALLABLE definitions.:

**“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all **is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

**“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature **to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“**The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, **can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Each definitions makes it more clear that
1 “no one at all” Is saved outside the Church;

2 that "every human creature " must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved

3 AND “not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics,” are going to be condemed , if they don’t enter the Church before they die.

To try and wiggle out of these three statements is like the Anglican Bishops proclaimation of Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. It is a strech and many will believe it but that doesn’t make it true.

2 religious orders hold these strict views but are not condemed but approved of by the Church.

The Feenyites have the stronger augument

 

[mgrfin]

Napad:

Wiggle? I don’t think that is fair.

Don’t you believe that the Holy See, the Vatican, The Holy Office, whatever you want to call the teaching Magisterium of the Church has a right to determine what was/is a defined doctrine of the faith, one where the Papacy can tell you whether such statements were made ‘ex cathedra’, and where the Pope in question intented to define a dogma of faith, which all believers must accept, and where he knew he was defining such a doctrine of faith.

If you look at the last infallible declaration by a Pope, you have to go back to 1950 when Pius XII define the Assumption of Mary, in his Bull “Munificentissimus Deus”. You can read it on the Internet. I quote the important part which shows what is what is a defining statement:

“44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

1. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

We celebrate this Feast on August 15th
Praise God.
mgrfin

 

[DJim]

To try and wiggle out of these three statements is like the Anglican Bishops proclaimation of Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. It is a strech and many will believe it but that doesn’t make it true.

2 religious orders hold these strict views but are not condemed but approved of by the Church.

The Feenyites have the stronger augument

MY Magisterium is alive.

The Feeneyites’ Magisterium is dead.

I think that’s all that needs to be said.

DJim

 

[Harsalter]

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,

No the RCC does not believe or teach this. You must be paying too close attention to the media or protestant clergy who depend on their living on people who stay outside the true church.

But regardless if people are outside the true church, they can be saved and receive salvation. It is much more difficult without having 5 of the 7 sacraments Christ instituted, but it is possible but very difficult.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The easiest explanation I have found about this subject comes from the Baltimore Catechism #4:

1. Q. 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. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

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.

**I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, ** except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

 

[SemperFidelis]

cont’d:

As a protestant who has had some issues with this subject (As I recently believed that the Church today contradicted the Church of the past, basically agreeing with the OP), the above paragraph is by the far the best and easiest to understand definition of “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” People really should use the Baltimore Catechism when it comes to this subject. The problem today is that invincible ignorance has been mis-interpreted by the followers of “the spirit of Vatican II” to mean almost everyone will be saved. Invincible ignorance is interpreted by some that almost everyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church is “invincibly ignorant” which equates to a kind of Universalism. Pope St. Pius X states that for someone to meet all the qualifications for invincible ignorance is extremely rare, as does the Baltimore Catechism section above. St. Pius X also delves into this in the Catechism of Pius X, and hits on Non-Christians here:

27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

The rest of the questions from the Catechism of St. Pius X that pertain to this topic can be found here:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pcreed09.htm

Also remember what the CCC says in paragraph 1036 by quoting the Bible:

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Mt 7:13-14)

 

[napad]

MY Magisterium is alive.

The Feeneyites’ Magisterium is dead.

I think that’s all that needs to be said.

DJim

Your living Magisterium approved TWO religious orders that hold the Feenyite position but some think they know more than the living magisterium and proclaim three DOGMATIC statements dead. I guess they are too PRE-VATICAN II for some.

Instead of aknowleging that the Feenyites may have a strict, valid and acceptable position, at least according to the Church, some would like to make two churches out of the ONE Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.

 

[napad]

Napad:

Wiggle? I don’t think that is fair.

Don’t you believe that the Holy See, the Vatican, The Holy Office, whatever you want to call the teaching Magisterium of the Church has a right to determine what was/is a defined doctrine of the faith, one where the Papacy can tell you whether such statements were made ‘ex cathedra’, and where the Pope in question intented to define a dogma of faith, which all believers must accept, and where he knew he was defining such a doctrine of faith.

If you look at the last infallible declaration by a Pope, you have to go back to 1950 when Pius XII define the Assumption of Mary, in his Bull “Munificentissimus Deus”. You can read it on the Internet. I quote the important part which shows what is what is a defining statement:

“44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

1. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

We celebrate this Feast on August 15th
Praise God.
mgrfin

These three definitions have always been proclaimed as DOGMATIC. They were summerized into an axiom " there is no salvation outside the Church" This axiom was used as short hand for these 3 dogmatic statements.

Even Ott who tried to wiggle out of it too had to write: “membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (De Fide)”

Catechism are well and good but they can not solve anything when there is a higher Church authority that corrects it or clearifies it.

 

[mgrfin]

Your living Magisterium approved TWO religious orders that hold the Feenyite position but some think they know more than the living magisterium and proclaim three DOGMATIC statements dead. I guess they are too PRE-VATICAN II for some.

Instead of aknowleging that the Feenyites may have a strict, valid and acceptable position, at least according to the Church, some would like to make two churches out of the ONE Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.

What two religious orders was that?

mgrfin

 

[napad]

What two religious orders was that?

mgrfin

In Post #237 of this thread

There are three religious orders that promote the Feenyite position the 2 that are approved are in Still River Massachusetts in the dioceses of Worchester.
64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:r76AUjsgohgJ:www.deoestgloria.com/us.g.ma.html+franciscans+still+river&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The 3rd is in New Hampshire but it is not functioning as an official religious order but is like a pius union I think.
But the above two are approved one is a Benedictine Abby using the rule of St. Benedict and the other is women using the rule of St. Francis
PS scan down to the town of Still River to find them

 

[DJim]

napad–

You may be pleased to learn that I am making further inquiry regarding the two orders in Still River connected with Fr. Feeney. You are correct that these orders are listed on the Worcester Diocese web site.

On the Abbey web site, they cite the following:

The Boston Diocesan censures imposed on April 18, 1949 were as follows:

· Reverend Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

· Any Catholics who frequent Saint Benedict Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

· Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
Richard J. Cushing,
Archbishop of Boston.

Regarding which I ask: Did Fr. Feeney obey his bishop, or not???
Did he stop preaching and functioning as a priest???

Meanwhile, I will let you know when I find out more about the diocesan view of these two orders.

As it stands, since this thread was started with a claim that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this issue, what do you think–HAS the Magisterium of the Catholic Church changed its teaching on this?

DJim

PS–for clarity–the 1949 censure no longer is in effect…

 

[bobzills]

In Post #237 of this thread

There are three religious orders that promote the Feenyite position the 2 that are approved are in Still River Massachusetts in the dioceses of Worchester.
64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:r76AUjsgohgJ:www.deoestgloria.com/us.g.ma.html+franciscans+still+river&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The 3rd is in New Hampshire but it is not functioning as an official religious order but is like a pius union I think.
But the above two are approved one is a Benedictine Abby using the rule of St. Benedict and the other is women using the rule of St. Francis
PS scan down to the town of Still River to find them

Correct. As I pointed out above, they have been reconciled with the Church.

 

[napad]

napad–

You may be pleased to learn that I am making further inquiry regarding the two orders in Still River connected with Fr. Feeney. You are correct that these orders are listed on the Worcester Diocese web site.

On the Abbey web site, they cite the following:

Regarding which I ask: Did Fr. Feeney obey his bishop, or not???
Did he stop preaching and functioning as a priest???

Meanwhile, I will let you know when I find out more about the diocesan view of these two orders.

As it stands, since this thread was started with a claim that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this issue, what do you think–HAS the Magisterium of the Catholic Church changed its teaching on this?

DJim

PS–for clarity–the 1949 censure no longer is in effect…

I think that the Church , ie official teaching has not changed on its position.

If you follow the hisory of the Feeny controversy it is striking that Catholic news papers twisted Pius XII statement in Humane Generis- ’ some have twisted the necessity of membership in the Church as necessary for salvation into a meaningless formular’ as to be against the feeny position.

I think there was a movement to the widely held posiiton of today among Catholics by theologians mainly who wanted also to get rid of limbo and the necessity of belonging to the Church.

Even the great Frank Sheed said that Feeny was never answered in th question he posed.

Vatican II so often quoted only makes sense if looked at through the continuity of the necessity of belonging to the Church, Becaus e otherwise it would be in direct contradiction the tradition of the Church.

Vatican II says that a person can be saved if he responds to the graces that God gives him. One of those graces must be finally membership in His Church. To think otherwise would be a complete novelty, like God isn’t capable of leading his lost sheep back to His fold.

The mistake many make is that, those who are not members in the Church are guilty of sin for not joining the Church. Because of ignorance they are not guilty of sin of not joining the Church but they are left to their own designs and their own sins. To be able live a holy life without the sacraments would contradict Trent which said that the sacraments were necessary for salvation and are not superfalous.