Most Holy Family Monestary

[TNT]

…
Would you tell all those Saints, Doctors, Church Fathers, etc. that they were wasting their time writing about Baptism of Desire?

YES. Same as angels on a pin head in consequence.
At one time when much of the world was inaccessible or undiscovered, it may have been significant. Today, it’s nearly vapor.

There is ABSOLUTELY no salvation outside the Church, but the Feeneyite’s are wrong in their interpretation, and we should take the time correcting them of their errors.

A Feeenite is never gonna change his mind because YET another lay person tells them they are wrong.

 

[SemperFidelis]

YES. Same as angels on a pin head in consequence.
At one time when much of the world was inaccessible or undiscovered, it may have been significant. Today, it’s nearly vapor.

I’m willing to bet there are many people in this world who neither have heard of or have access to the Church, so I would say Baptism of Desire still applies. Unlike you however, I’m not willing to make a blanket statement regarding the possible ignorance of those outside the Church. I’ll let God decide and leave it that.

A Feeenite is never gonna change his mind because YET another lay person tells them they are wrong.

You’re right on this one. Not even Pope Pius XII, the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, or Bishop Cushing of Boston could correct the erroneous opinions of Fr. Feeney and the rest of the Feeneyites. But I guess if we all gave up, then nothing would ever get accomplished.

 

[AMDGJMJ2]

A.C.J. ICXC A.M.D.G. MPOV A.C.M.
+ ------ J.M.J. --------- +
+

Dear SemperFidelis,
I have read some of your quotes…However; all of them that I have read did not seem to really disprove anything…Forgive me if I have been rather blunt.

     You said that Feeneyite's believe that the rejection of their teachings on "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" leads one to hell...All I have to say to that is that it is not the rejection of "their personal opinions", but that of the Traditions, Customs, and Doctrines held by the Church!....Also...If an idea was not in dogma yet...Then, even if the Church Doctors did say something different it would not exclude them from the Church since...Therefore, they would not be damned to hell...

Pax Christi,
AMDGJMJ2

Feeneyite’s believe that the rejection of their teachings on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leads one to hell whether he is ignorant or not. If this is the case, somebody better call the Vatican and let them know that more than half of the Doctors of the Church are in hell.

 

[SemperFidelis]

You said that Feeneyite’s believe that the rejection of their teachings on “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” leads one to hell…All I have to say to that is that it is not the rejection of “their personal opinions”, but that of the Traditions, Customs, and Doctrines held by the Church!..

See that’s where you are wrong, it is their personal opinions. Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpete the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani clearly condemned the personal opinions of Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center saying they were personally interpreting a Dogma of the Church incorrectly.

Also…If an idea was not in dogma yet…Then, even if the Church Doctors did say something different it would not exclude them from the Church since…Therefore, they would not be damned to hell…

The Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Dogma is required for belief on pain of mortal sin. I have seen several Feeneyites argue that they have the right interpretation of EENS, and anyone who disagrees with them is committing a mortal sin. If that’s the case, then look at the list I posted earlier, because according to the Feeneyites St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, etc. all erred in their teachings of EENS, and committed mortal sin in the process.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Here’s the list I posted earlier with everyone (Doctors, Popes, theologians, Fathers of Trent and Vatican II, authors of several Catechisms) who has to my knowledge (so there could be more) taught Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood after the defining of EENS in 1215:

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1216)
St. Bonaventura (Doctor, A.D. 1270)
St. Thomas Aquinas. (Doctor, A.D. 1274)
St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor, A.D. 1380)
Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1572)
Council of Trent (A.D. 1563)
St. Charles Borromeo (A.D. 1584)
St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor, A.D. 1621)
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori (Doctor, A.D. 1787)
Bishop George Hay (A.D. 1811)
Fr. Michael Muller (A.D. 1875)
Dom Gueranger (A.D. 1875)
Blessed Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1878)
Orestes Brownson (late nineteenth century)
Pope St. Pius X (A.D. 1914)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1922)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1958)
Second Vatican Council (A.D. 1965)

Here’s some Catechisms that teach this:

Catechism of Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Baltimore Catechism
Catechism of St. Pius X
This Is The Faith
My Catholic Faith
The Catholic Catechism
Catechism of the Catholic Church

If the Feeneyites are right, then all of these people above are wrong, and have committed mortal sin because they were wrong. That’s a pretty scandalous statement to make, and means the Church has erred for centuries because they were teaching BOD and BOB.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

See that’s where you are wrong, it is their personal opinions. Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpete the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani clearly condemned the personal opinions of Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center saying they were personally interpreting a Dogma of the Church incorrectly.

Thnat wasn’t the main issue, however. The main issue was that Feeney was a clergyman and was disobeying the instructions of his bishop. If he was a layman then it probably would have been OK, Cushing would just have laughed patronisingly and said “that’s one very extreme interpretation that a few Catholics in this diocese hold”.

However he was a clergyman, so the question was “does this man or does he not speak for your Church?” The answer was “no”, which would have invited the retort “why is he still a minister?”. Feeney was in fact offered desk duties, but he refused, and kept his institute going despite orders to close it. In the absence of any temporal authority the bishop could exercise, there was little option but to excommunicate him.

So we shouldn’t read too much about the dogma into Feeney’s excommunication. Obviously the authorities disagreed with Feeney, but ultimately it was more about discipline. He was readmitted on his deathbed. The idea was never to kick him out permanently, just to exercise some control.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Malcolm, I never said the whole thing was about Dogma. I agree it was about disobediance as well. The Holy Office also issed a long letter refuting Fr. Feeney’s opinion of EENS. Here it is:

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. 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.

 

[SemperFidelis]

(cont’d)

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “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.”

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they 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” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he 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 well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “<imprimatur,>“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

 

[SemperFidelis]

(cont’d)

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency’s most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

 

[napad]

See that’s where you are wrong, it is their personal opinions. Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpete the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani clearly condemned the personal opinions of Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center saying they were personally interpreting a Dogma of the Church incorrectly.

B]Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpret the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam

This is a mistake. Definitions are not interpreted they are definitions. If I look up a word and I give the definition you can’t say “oh that’s their interpretation.” If the Church has defined something then that is the infallable definition it is not to be interpreted. It can be explained to clarify the meaning but not interpreted and then make the definition say the opposite.

You and others are saying de facto “there is salivation outside the church” because those who are not members of the Church can go to heaven.

 

[SemperFidelis]

You and others are saying de facto “there is salivation outside the church” because those who are not members of the Church can go to heaven.

This is not and has never been the case. The Church has defined the above statement to be false, and this comes from a misunderstanding of EENS. If you’re going to understand this Dogma, you have to read ALL of what the Church understands regarding it, not just the definitions YOU want to read. Read this book if you want to understand EENS as it properly is understood:

angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=8232

 

[napad]

This is not and has never been the case. The Church has defined the above statement to be false, and this comes from a misunderstanding of EENS. If you’re going to understand this Dogma, you have to read ALL of what the Church understands regarding it, not just the definitions YOU want to read. Read this book if you want to understand EENS as it properly is understood:

angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=8232

It has nothing to do with EENS per se, it is the **PRINCIPLE **involved. Dogmas are infallible statements i.e. **DEFINITION. **
American Heritage Dictionary states:
definition :
1.A statement conveying fundamental character.
2.A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
3.The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.

A dogmatic definition is the highest use of the magesterium. It is above the ordinary magisterium. How can we subject the higher authority to a lower authority for INTERPRETATION?

You are opening a pandora’s box. Can we also “interpret” what the Body of Christ means in the Eucharist?

Can we also “interpret” what the meaning of the Resurrection of Christ means? Etc… this is Modernism in disguise.

Here is an example of a Moderinist double speak. Let say he is speaking about bread becoming the Body and Blood of Christ at mass or pick any DOGMA you like. Does it make sense?:

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Does that sound like Catholic DOGMA?

 

[cam100]

A dogmatic definition is the highest use of the magesterium. It is above the ordinary magisterium. How can we subject the higher authority to a lower authority for INTERPRETATION?

That’s why we let the magisterium – the popes and bishops – interpret dogma. We don’t interpret it ourselves against the magisterium.

 

[napad]

That’s why we let the magisterium – the popes and bishops – interpret dogma. We don’t interpret it ourselves against the magisterium.

That is my whole point!!
(BTW I’m not a sedivicantist or follower of “Most Holy Family Monastery” in case you assume this. This is just my pet peeve)

But there is NO interpretation needed for a definition. Hence the term “Definitive Statement”i.e. the last word! Finito! final! end! There are NO interpretations allowed!!! Peter has Spoken!

Vatican I (1869–70) decreed "… 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.”
(Dei Filius, Ch 4; Vatican I)

again Vatican I:
If anyone says that ** it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge**, * a sense * may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the **Church has understood **and understands: let him be anathema. (Session 2; ch. 4 On Faith and Reason- Canon 3; Vatican I )

We don’t need interpertations!!

 

[SemperFidelis]

If anyone says that ** it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge**, * a sense * may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the **Church has understood **and understands: let him be anathema. (Session 2; ch. 4 On Faith and Reason- Canon 3; Vatican I )

Yes, and the way the Church understands EENS today, is the way it always has and Feeneyism is not that way. Pope Blessed Pius IX taught that those who are invincibly ignorant may be saved and that they are inside the Church. You don’t think he anathematized himself do you?

 

[napad]

Yes, and the way the Church understands EENS today, is the way it always has and Feeneyism is not that way. Pope Blessed Pius IX taught that those who are invincibly ignorant may be saved and that they are inside the Church. You don’t think he anathematized himself do you?

first show me the anathama he attached to this statement

 

[SemperFidelis]

first show me the anathama he attached to this statement

Ha, ha, ha. Seriously though, would you call him anathema according to Vatican I (a Council which he called) for teaching that the invincibly ignorant may be saved.?

 

[napad]

Ha, ha, ha. Seriously though, would you call him anathema according to Vatican I (a Council which he called) for teaching that the invincibly ignorant may be saved.?

Please give the quote.

And No, I don’t think Pius IX is a heritic:tsktsk: (BTW do you know his body is incurrupt but they wont let him be displayed in the Vatican he is somewhere way outside of Rome- A friend priest I know went there:nerd: )

 

[SemperFidelis]

Please give the quote.

And No, I don’t think Pius IX is a heritic:tsktsk: (BTW do you know his body is incurrupt but they wont let him be displayed in the Vatican he is somewhere way outside of Rome- A friend priest I know went there:nerd: )

From QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

1. 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.

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9QUANTO.HTM

On a side note, I have heard his body has not corrupted. He is my favorite Pope, and I don’t think it will be too long until he is canonized.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Also, I just found this out about where his body is located. It’s at Saint Lawrence outside the walls in Rome:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_di_San_Lorenzo_fuori_le_Mura