How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[mgrfin]

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…

Feeney was a Jesuit and was subject to the Superior General of the Jesuits (The Black Pope).
Of course, one of the strenghts of the Order is OBEDIENCE. You get down on your knees, and you are told to obey. It is not a question of who is right or wrong; it is a question of obedience.
I love St. Ignatius. He had a real army.

mgrfin

 

[DJim]

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.

But here is the key question regarding the Feeney position:

Did Feeney–and do these orders–insist that “one of those graces” be visible or earthly membership in His Church?

IOW, was there (or is there) insistence that only those who are officially members of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved?

DJim

 

[napad]

But here is the key question regarding the Feeney position:

Did Feeney–and do these orders–insist that “one of those graces” be visible or earthly membership in His Church?

IOW, was there (or is there) insistence that only those who are officially members of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved?

DJim

Sorry I was tired the other night here are some quotes to clearify:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation-----HUMANI GENERIS-- par.27

**MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI par.22:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. **

The Church is not only a society or body of the baptized but also of the faithful. As very clearly stated in Mytici Corporis, (Pius XII)* ‘those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit.’*

**MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI par.57:

Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: “Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul.” [106] **

The “soul” of the Church has led many to imagine that people who are in the state of grace belong to or are members of the Mystical Body of Christ in opposition to the above Encyclicals:yet the Holy Spirit] refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body

 

[napad]

But here is the key question regarding the Feeney position:

Did Feeney–and do these orders–insist that “one of those graces” be visible or earthly membership in His Church?

IOW, was there (or is there) insistence that only those who are officially members of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved?

DJim

When You say “official” do you mean baptised and accept all the Church teaches?

Then Yes, this is necessary according to the Church.

Do I like this?

No, I don’t.

But if we are to be Catholic We need to be honest and we need the Church to clearify this muddy water stuff. Why all this confusion?

Well if I told you in 1950 that there are priests who don’t belive in the real presents or that they are abusing children or are homosexuals or wont obey the Pope…etc… You would think I was crazy. I thought the same of the Feeny posiiton but they do have a lot of documents that back up their position. All I think we should do is at least have some diolog with them.

No one in Catholic Answers has or will debate a Feenyite ( to my knowlege)

I read some articles by CA on this subject and they were all very weak. One even went so far as to compare dogmatic statements to road safty, meaning that in times of emergency we can break the rules of the road ie. dogmatic statements.

 

[DJim]

Napad–

Is someone who is baptized in the Lutheran Church a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, or not?

DJim

 

[Harsalter]

When You say “official” do you mean baptised and accept all the Church teaches?

Then Yes, this is necessary according to the Church.

The RCC ‘DOES NOT’ teach that one must be baptised and accept all church teachings to be saved. They do not do this!

The RCC does teach that to be in ‘Full Communion’ with the RCC, one must be baptised, confirmed into the church and accept all church teachings.

We have many catholics each and every day that go and receive communion that are not in full communion with the church as they believe in and practice sins such as artificial birth control.

 

[bobzills]

We have many catholics each and every day that go and receive communion that are not in full communion with the church as they believe in and practice sins such as artificial birth control.

What percentage of Catholic clergy today believe that for married couples, the practice of ABC is always a mortal sin, even when the couple already have 3 or 4 children and can’t afford any more?

 

[Harsalter]

What percentage of Catholic clergy today believe that for married couples, the practice of ABC is always a mortal sin, even when the couple already have 3 or 4 children and can’t afford any more?

Either they believe it, or they should leave the Church, there is no middle ground, PERIOD. I know my priest believes it and teaches it almost weekly. If yours doesn’t, go to your bishop!

If couples believe they cannot afford any further children, they should abstain from sex. If they believe what their Church teaches, then they will leave it in the hands of God and trust God to provide. Also, NFP is available in the Church. But this isn’t the subject of this thread.

The point is if every priest were allowed their personal opinions, our Church would be no better than the approx 30,000 protestant denominations with no direction, authority and everybody believing something different. NO THANKS!

 

[bobzills]

I asked the question, because you were the one who brought up the point, but did not give a reason as to why this may be so.

We have many catholics each and every day that go and receive communion that are not in full communion with the church as they believe in and practice sins such as artificial birth control.

 

[Harsalter]

I asked the question, because you were the one who brought up the point, but did not give a reason as to why this may be so.

There are more reasons why people sin than sin itself. But they all stem from an improperly formed conscious.

 

[DJim]

Maybe Bobzills will provide a reply to this as well?

Is a baptized Lutheran a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, or not?

DJim

 

[mgrfin]

What percentage of Catholic clergy today believe that for married couples, the practice of ABC is always a mortal sin, even when the couple already have 3 or 4 children and can’t afford any more?

I would hope 100%.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[napad]

Maybe Bobzills will provide a reply to this as well?

Is a baptized Lutheran a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, or not?

DJim

no

 

[napad]

Maybe Bobzills will provide a reply to this as well?

Is a baptized Lutheran a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, or not?

DJim

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.

Can a Lutheran recieve communion licitly in a Catholic Church? No because they are not Catholic= members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[DJim]

Napad:

This is from the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism:

"3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. **But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, **and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Do you accept this decree as infallibly true?

DJim

 

[bobzills]

Maybe Bobzills will provide a reply to this as well?

Is a baptized Lutheran a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, or not?

DJim

Is this question on the topic of “How is this Papal Bull not infallible”?

 

[DJim]

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.

Can a Lutheran recieve communion licitly in a Catholic Church? No because they are not Catholic= members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Napad–

This seems at odds with the passage I just quoted in the last post, doesn’t it?

That is, “Catholic” (defined as being a visible member of the Roman Catholic Church) does NOT equal “members of the Mystical Body of Christ.”

All the baptized appear to be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, albeit in imperfect communion; don’t you agree?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Is this question on the topic of “How is this Papal Bull not infallible”?

YES, it’s on topic.

The topic involves who is and who is not saved, by virtue of their being members of the Church. It is the focal point of the original claim that somehow there has been a contradiction in magisterial teaching regarding who can and can’t be saved.

Would you care, Bobzills, to answer?

DJim

 

[napad]

Napad–

This seems at odds with the passage I just quoted in the last post, doesn’t it?

That is, “Catholic” (defined as being a visible member of the Roman Catholic Church) does NOT equal “members of the Mystical Body of Christ.”

All the baptized appear to be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, albeit in imperfect communion; don’t you agree?

DJim

If you mean: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.

This was a direct quote of PiusXII Mystical Body Encyclical post 262 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2572510&postcount=262

And about the three definitions in post 247
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2565702&postcount=247

VATICAN I says that they can not be understood a different way than the way they were defined:
**Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be
perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; **and there must never be recession from that meaning under the
specious name of a deeper understanding. (DNZ 1800)

In other words the words of those three definitions can not be wiggled out of. The understanding the Church gave them then is what the Church must give them now.

 

[napad]

The Catholic principles of authority and interpretation demand that EACH NON-definitive and NON-infallible documents/statements MUST be interpreted in light of and in subjection to previous infallible definitions, decrees and canons. Otherwise, the authority of the Church is turned upside-down and nullified and the protective benefits of infallibility are lost.

Encyclicals and Vatican II must be seen as strengthening positions already defined, not weakening them or making them less clear.

So, again, Pius XI said that there is no REAL or ACTUAL membership in the Church without sacramental Baptism (which is in water only as infallibly defined by the CHurch in Trent) and Faith.

**Pope Pius IX declared in Quas Primas (1925):

“The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth… The Gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and CANNOT
ACTUALLY enter EXCEPT by faith and by Baptism…”**

Here is anothe r Pope’s comment:
**Pope Clement VI (1342-52) in Super Quibusdam (1351) declared:

“No man outside the faith of the Roman Catholic Church and outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can finally be saved.”**

**Blessed Pope Pius IX declared in Amantissimus (1862):

“It would be possible to multiply indefinitely citations from the best witnesses, all of whom openly and clearly declare the necessity of submission and obedience which must be accorded the Apostolic See and the Roman pontiff in order to obtain salvation.”**