D
devoutchristian
Guest
No. How you got that out of my post is beyond me.
That encyclical has to do with false ecumenism, not invincible ignorance.
- Status
T
Tunesmith
Guest
This is how I got it. You seem to be saying they are tormented - not punished.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
I said that the encyclical was better translated as “do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal torments”.
J
JM3
Guest
What teaching of the Catholic Church are you referring to?
P
pnewton
Guest
No, they do not. This statement of yours is a formulation that has never been used, and in the case of at least one person (Fr. Feeney) has been condemned.
I notice you never link your quotes. This is a Catholic website. It would be nice if you claim something is Catholic teaching to provide a little more than your say so, so that the context can be determined and we might avoid portraying as Catholic something that is heresy.
P
pnewton
Guest
I’ll be derned. You did link something. Excellent. It provides a good example of what these statements are and what they are not. It is a statement of the direction Pope Pius chose to take the Church at that time. An increased openness to ecumenical gatherings does not suggest that he was wrong then, or that the Church is wrong now.
A quick question based on what I’ve read. Do you believe in the legitimacy of the Holy Father?
T
Tunesmith
Guest
The Baltimore Cathechism
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
T
Tunesmith
Guest
Yes I do. The Holy Fathers are teaching truth today but not the same truth the Holy Fathers taught before them. If they all taught the same thing then there would be no need for a second Vatican Council. They could just say “Ditto to everything we taught in the first Vatican Council.” The Catholic Church used to teach only Catholics go to heaven. Now they don’t teach that. It’s that simple. It’s the opposite. Protestants were heretics and Jews were hated. They were not imperfectly joined to anything.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
No it didn’t. Feeneyism is a heresy. It was condemned long before VII.
J
JM3
Guest
Denzinger (43rd edition)
Theory of limbo M3d
DS 224
Canon 3’. Likewise, it has been decided: If anyone says that the Lord said, “In my Father’s house there are many rooms” [Jn 14:2], in such a way that it is understood that in the kingdom of heaven there is some place in the middle or elsewhere where little children may live blessedly even if they have gone forth from this world without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is everlasting life, let him be anathema. For since the Lord says, “Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”. [Jn 3:5], what Catholic could doubt that he who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ is going to share the lot of the devil? For he who is not on the right-hand side will without doubt fall to the left.
DS 2626
- The doctrine that rejects as a Pelagian fable that place in the netherworld (which the faithful commonly designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of the dead with only original sin are punished with the punishment of damnation without the punishment of fire, as if those who remove the punishment of fire were thereby introducing some intermediate place and state exempt from guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, as the Pelagians have imagined, (is) false, rash and injurious to Catholic schools.
T
Tunesmith
Guest
Where did Fr. Feeney and his followers ever get the idea they were on the right track? I think possibly because the Church taught what Fr. Feeney was teaching for most of its existence. The Church was beginning to change in the 1950’s.
Here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe
boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/04/19/the_american_heresy/?page=1
WHO WOULD HAVE thought that a Catholic priest preaching on the Boston Common 60 years ago could set in motion a momentous change that still defines the great argument that Catholics, and other believers, are having with themselves? The priest’s name was Father Leonard Feeney, and the topic of his sermons was “No Salvation Outside the Church.” That was a long-held dogma, dating at least to the 1302 papal bull Unam Sanctam (“One Holy”): Only those in full communion with the pope in Rome are assured of God’s grace; everyone else will burn in the eternal lake of fire. Feeney’s diatribes were aimed especially at Jews. Unluckily for him, one of the people who worked in nearby Back Bay, and could regularly hear his preaching during lunch-time strolls, was a fellow named Dick Pearlstein, who, with his brother, ran a stylish men’s clothing shop. Named for its founder, their father, Louis, the store is still there (and still stylish).
It so happened that Dick Pearlstein’s wife, Dolly, was the sister of the Catholic archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing. Cushing loved Dolly, and he loved his brother-in-law. How the archbishop must have winced to hear of the anti-Semitic slurs that were a staple of Feeney’s preaching. That Cushing took in what they meant to his sister’s husband is suggested by the fact that he ordered Feeney to stop his preaching, no matter how consistent it was with established doctrine. The priest refused, and refused again. Cushing excommunicated Feeney. A confident Feeney appealed to Rome. Then, to the astonishment of the whole Catholic world, the Vatican upheld the excommunication. Feeney was out.
It was 1953. I was 10 years old, living in Alexandria, Va. The nuns of St. Mary’s school were abuzz with the news, and the monsignor was flustered. I went to my mother. "A priest was excommunicated for preaching ‘No Salvation Outside the Church?’ " I asked. “But I thought that was what we believed.”
“It was,” my mother answered calmly.
“What do we believe now?”
"We believe, ‘Live and let live.’ " My mother, like countless other American Catholics, had clearly been prepared for this shift by the experience of intimacy with her own versions of the Pearlsteins.
T
Tunesmith
Guest
Limbo was more than a theory. The Baltimore Catechism doesn’t suggest at all that you could take it or leave it. Baptism was defined by the Church as absolutely necessary for salvation so much so that infants could not enter heaven without it.
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
Straightaway to hell does not sound like a theory.
Vatican II says unbaptized adults of any faith (even atheists) may attain salvation if they live a good life. I like what Vatican II says. All I’m saying is it’s quite a change from traditional teaching.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
From the father of lies, just like all heretics.
So a secular newspaper is engaging in revisionist history? Big whoop.
J
JM3
Guest
T
Tunesmith
Guest
That’s what they say now. As I quoted before in the Baltimore Catechism and the Council of Florence, if a child was not baptized that child was going to limbo. Anyone not baptized had original sin. That included everyone. Ask any Catholic over the age of 60 if they were ever told before Vatican II that it was OK to not baptize a child.
This was the teaching before Vatican II.
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
This was the teaching before Vatican II.
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
T
Tomster
Guest
Is Vatican II Infallible?
The simple answer is yes.
And this is why.
In the Church of the first millenium it was universally accepted that no decisions in matters of faith could be final and binding on all without the consent of the bishop of Rome.
The decisive authority of Councils rests on the infallibility of their decisions. The theological basis of this is that the episcopal body in union with the Pope is the successor of the Apostolic College. Admittedly, the bishops cannot introduce new revealed truths, as the apostles did, but they possess, as a body, the infallibility Christ promised his Church. When assembled in Council in accord with their visible head, they are kept from error by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The Church of the Living God is called by St. Paul “the pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The bishops as successors of the apostles exercise their teaching function in the most solemn manner when assembled at a Council, and all believers are bound to accept to acept their decisions in matters of faith. For that reason, the early Church held the conviction that ecumenical Councils were infallible.
St. Ambrose (330-397) affirmed that neither death nor the sword could cut him off from the Council of Nicea.
St. Augustine (354-430) compares the authority of the Councils with that of the apostles.
St. Gregory the Great (540-604) goes so far as to say: “I confess that I accept and reverence the four Councils as I do the four Gospels . . . , for they are founded on universal consent.”
The conviction of the infallibility of the Councils was universal till the Reformation, and hardly questioned even at the time of the medieval conciliar movement.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
The Church has always taught that baptism is absolutely required to enter heaven. In fact, it still teaches that today. However, baptism is not only by water though. While this is the norm, there is also the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood.
To say that there has been a change in Catholic teaching on the subject would be incorrect. To say that there has been a further understanding of that teaching and that certain points are now highlighted at times when they previously were not, would be the correct understanding.
The teachings of the Church have not changed, though our understanding of them might.
T
Tunesmith
Guest
The Council of Florence says a non-Catholic is out "even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#4
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#4
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
As I said before, that is as true today as it was then. What has changed is not teaching but understanding. What does persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church mean? The understanding we have of it today is that it can also be applied to those who received the baptism of blood or the baptism of desire.
The teaching is not wrong and has not changed. Our understanding of the teaching and its meaning has changed through the ages.
Just as we no longer think that all sickness is a result of sin, because medicine now understands how diseases work. Many of the same diseases are still there, but now we have a better understanding of how they work.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
- Status