"No Salvation outside the Catholic Church"

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

I don’t think it was ex-cathedra, but it is part of the ordinary magisterium

I agree that it was an authentic teaching of the magisterium. It is very clear and very forceful. However, we should also keep in mind that the apostolic consitution is primarily a legislative act, an exercise of the pope’s governing authority rather than his teaching authority. Whether the document is sufficient to support the claim that this is, therefore, sententia certa of the Catholic Church to which all the faithful are bound to give religious assent of mind and will is dubious. Especially since various Catholics since before Trent and still after Sixtus’ apostolic constitution (St. Bernard, Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) held that infants may be saved by an act of desire. One would have to think that prayers of the faithful are worthless to contend otherwise. There’s but one ex opere operato means of baptism, but that does not rule out the ex opere operantis means spoken of by Scripture: “If you have faith … nothing will be impossible to you” (Mt 17:20)

For example, the pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology text by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, states

“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire–Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason (baptism of desire–H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi Sacrament (baptism of suffering–H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D 712.” [emphasis added]

(Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Edited in English by James Canon Bastible, D.D., Translated from the German by Patrick Lynch, Ph.D., Tan Books, Rockford IL, Fourth Edition, 1960, first published in English in 1955, pg. 114)

USMC:

… and there has been no other statement to the contrary.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, also an Acta Apostolicae Sedis but primarily an exercise of the pope’s authentic teaching authority states:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Contrary to Sixtus V, the above teaching of the magisterium states that one is allowed to have hope in their salvation.

 

[USMC]

Dave:

CCC #1261 “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Contrary to Sixtus V, the above teaching of the magisterium states that one is allowed to have hope in their salvation.

Hoping that an aborted baby somehow obtains the state of grace is not contrary to what Pope Sixtus wrote. He did not say “it is forbidded to hope in any extra-sacramental means by which they could obtain the state of grace”. All he did was to state that aborted babies are deprived from the beatific vision, which is true, unless there is something that God has not yet revealed to us. And since God has not revealed anything to us that would lead us to believe that an aborted baby can obtain the state of grace, what Pope Sixtus V wrote was correct. He based his statement on what the Church knows, rather than on what people desire. Even the new Catechism says that the Church knows of no other means of justification than baptism:

CCC #”1257 “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59]… The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”

I don’t think it would be wrong to hope that an aborted baby somehow attains the state of grace, but we have to realize that this “hope” is not based on any known truth, but merely on desire and speculation.

And we also have to make sure that this “hope” does not cause us to doubt what the Church teaches, which may indeed happen. For example, in people’s hope and desire that aborted babies are saved, they may deny that those who depart this life of original sin only are deprived of the beatific vision. Isn’t that exactly what someone on this thread did?

“Your assert that God condemns to Hell for all eternity humans who… die only in a state of original sin. This… is the reason why some people assert that…aborted children… are sent to Hell for all eternity.”

Does that person deny the dogma that those who depart this life in original sin only go straight to hell because of his “hope” that aborted babies will be saved? I don’t know. But I do think it is possible that some people could do just that.

That would be the danger in hoping to strongly in something that we have no “known” reason to hope for. So, is it allowed to hope that aborted babies are saved? Sure, as long as the hope does not cause a person to question official Church teaching, such as this one:

Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

Hoping that an aborted baby somehow obtains the state of grace is not contrary to what Pope Sixtus wrote. He did not say “it is forbidded to hope in any extra-sacramental means by which they could obtain the state of grace”. All he did was to state that aborted babies are deprived from the beatific vision, which is true, unless there is something that God has not yet revealed to us. And since God has not revealed anything to us that would lead us to believe that an aborted baby can obtain the state of grace, what Pope Sixtus V wrote was correct. He based his statement on what the Church knows, rather than on what people desire. Even the new Catechism says that the Church knows of no other means of justification than baptism:

CCC #”1257 “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59]… The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”

I don’t think it would be wrong to hope that an aborted baby somehow attains the state of grace, but we have to realize that this “hope” is not based on any known truth, but merely on desire and speculation.

And we also have to make sure that this “hope” does not cause us to doubt what the Church teaches, which may indeed happen. For example, in people’s hope and desire that aborted babies are saved, they may deny that those who depart this life of original sin only are deprived of the beatific vision. Isn’t that exactly what someone on this thread did?

Does that person deny the dogma that those who depart this life in original sin only go straight to hell because of his “hope” that aborted babies will be saved? I don’t know. But I do think it is possible that some people could do just that.

That would be the danger in hoping to strongly in something that we have no “known” reason to hope for. So, is it allowed to hope that aborted babies are saved? Sure, as long as the hope does not cause a person to question official Church teaching, such as this one:

Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”.

I agree. I misunderstood you to be claiming that we are obliged to believe aborted babies are in limbo. While we may believe this, and centuries of Catholic theology supports this, nevertheless we may believe that even infants are somehow given extra-sacramental means of salvation before death. Since St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb then I find that Scripture supports this view for those that God wills for them an extra-sacramental sanctification in the womb.

The Church certainly knows of no means other than sacramental baptism or its desire. But I understand that to mean *ex opere operato *means. We certainly know of the means of prayer, and have recourse to prayer, and the faithful can have hope based upon their prayers and the mercy of God.

As for Matt 16_18’s thesis… He and I have already agreed to disagree on this. I believe his thesis of a post-death justification to be contrary to Catholic doctrine, and tried to show that in this thread here:

Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JKirkLVNV,

JKirkLVNV:

I do not think that the Catechism, in discussing this, can contextually be read is such a way that our fellow, non-Catholic Christians will be saved only ***if ***they are in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church. Read it: the CCC deals with non-Catholic Christians in one section, then with non-Christians in the succeeding section, then with those who never hear the Name of Jesus at all. Invincible ignorance only applies to them, not to our fellow Christians …

My view, just in case it wasn’t clear to you, is that invincible ignorance can apply to Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and/or non-Christians. Furthermore, so does *vincible ignorance, *and affected ignorance.

1. Invincible ignorance removes all culpability.
2. Vincible ignorance may diminishes culpability
3. Affected ignorance actually increases culpability

This is due to the Catholic teaching that a mortal sin requires full advertence and perfect consent. St. Pius X states…

For a sin to be mortal three things are required: (1) Grave matter, (2) Full advertence, (3) Perfect consent of the will. … The matter is grave when the thing under examination is seriously contrary to the laws of God and His Church. … Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil. … Perfect consent of the will is verified in sinning when we deliberately determine to do a thing although we know that thing to be sinful.

Thus materially grave sin may become venial if the conditions are not completely fulfilled.

This is congruent with St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching:

… a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act…This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed. (ST IIa, 88, 6)

I don’t know one of my Protestant friends and family that rejects Catholicism with full advertence or perfect consent. Instead, they reject what they erroneously believe Catholicism teaches. There’s an privation of knowledge which only God knows for certain what is causing it. Is it invincible, vincible or affected ignorance? Only God knows if they and we are fully culpable, partially culpable, or non-culpable for our erroneous views about Him and His Will for us.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

Our mission as Catholics is to not presume that their ignorance is non-voluntary, but to continue to evangelize always to all men, Catholics, Protestans, Jews, Muslims, and all others. We can only sow the seeds and place our trust in God above to do the rest.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV,

My view, just in case it wasn’t clear to you, is that invincible ignorance can apply to Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and/or non-Christians. Furthermore, so does *vincible ignorance, *and affected ignorance.

1. Invincible ignorance removes all culpability.
2. Vincible ignorance may diminishes culpability
3. Affected ignorance actually increases culpability

This is due to the Catholic teaching that a mortal sin requires full advertence and perfect consent. St. Pius X states…

Thus materially grave sin may become venial if the conditions are not completely fulfilled.

This is congruent with St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching:

I don’t know one of my Protestant friends and family that rejects Catholicism with full advertence or perfect consent. Instead, they reject what they erroneously believe Catholicism teaches. There’s an privation of knowledge which only God knows for certain what is causing it. Is it invincible, vincible or affected ignorance? Only God knows if they and we are fully culpable, partially culpable, or non-culpable for our erroneous views about Him and His Will for us.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote:

Our mission as Catholics is to not presume that their ignorance is non-voluntary, but to continue to evangelize always to all men, Catholics, Protestans, Jews, Muslims, and all others. We can only sow the seeds and place our trust in God above to do the rest.

Ah, Dave, thank you and Christ bless you for taking the time and energy to post this. I’m still mulling this over, but your very kindness is a comfort. I will remember you when I say the Divine Mercy Chaplet this evening.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

I don’t think it would be wrong to hope that an aborted baby somehow attains the state of grace, but we have to realize that this “hope” is not based on any known truth, but merely on desire and speculation.

It is a hope based on the sure knowledge that God’s mercy is above all things, and not just the wistful thinking of a bunch of sentimentalists.

The aborted child was created by God to obtain the beatific vision, and the child is the innocent victim of the sin of abortion, not the perpetrator of the sin of abortion. Is God going to tell the woman that has repented of abortion and begs God’s mercy for her aborted child that she is forgiven but her child is beyond hope?

itsjustdave1988:

As for Matt 16_18’s thesis… He and I have already agreed to disagree on this. I believe his thesis of a post-death justification to be contrary to Catholic doctrine, and tried to show that in this thread here:

Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

As I read that thread again, I believe that the problem stems from the fact that you and I were using the word “justification” in different senses.

If all you mean by a person being “justified” is that he is dwelling in a state of being where God judges that he is not culpable for the eternal punishment due sin, then I think that there is no disagreement between us. I agree that no one can be forgiven the eternal punishment due sin after they have died.

 

[Sean_O_L]

USMC wrote:

Shame on you Sean OL. What the Pope taught does not correspond to what you would have liked him to say, so you attack him?

The shame is on YOU, USMC for using Sixtus V to bolster your argument. I was for this that I demonstrated that Sixtus V was NOT quoted in Denzingers on any matter of Dogma!

On the matter of EENS- here is an extract from a reply in 2000 to an enquirer:

Pete Vere was a supporter of the SSPX and he was a supporter of Fr. Feeney. He left the SSPX for basically similar reasons that anyone else leaves the SSPX - not over “feneyism”.

The Still River Community IS in communion with Rome and operates in the Benedictine Tradition. If you do not believe this, why not ask their local Bishop?

Just as Fr. Feeney was not required to make a retraction of “errors” - (Outside the Church - no salvation IS a defined doctrine)- nor have the reconciled “feneyites” been required to cease and desist from holding and espousing the doctrine. We may not understand that, and we may disagree with their being permitted to do so, but we are not the appropriate authority in the matter.

I believe that, in holding the EENS position, Pete Vere also subjects his will to the authority of the Church.

Of course, the authority of the Church is as set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Matt16_18]

EWTN Library

**MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH ** There is no salvation outside the Church … it would be terribly wrong to hold this in such a way as to say, in effect, that if someone does not get his name on the register of some Catholic parish, even if he never had a chance to hear there was such a thing as the Church, such a one is damned. So God would damn millions upon millions without ever giving them a chance. But that would not be a god, but a monster. And, logically, unbaptized infants would have to be damned too. But that is ruled out by the text of Pius IX [DS 2866]: “God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishment who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

L. Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by the Church for it.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Matt16-18 wrote:

L. Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by the Church for it.

I am no Feeneyite, Matt and, here in Australia Feeneyism is practically unknown. However, it is not true that Fr Feeney was excommunicated for his errors on “Outside the Church there is no salvation…” He was excommunicated for refusing (disobedience to a lawful command from a lawful superior) repeatedly refusing summonses to go to Rome.

See Karl Keating’s E-Letter at catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

 

[USMC]

USMC:

Shame on you Sean OL. What the Pope taught does not correspond to what you would have liked him to say, so you attack him?

Sean O L:

The shame is on YOU, USMC for using Sixtus V to bolster your argument.

Let me rephrase what you just said: “Shame on you USMC for using the voice of the magisterium to bolster your argument”.

Does that make the least bit of sense? Have we reached such a state of confusion today, due to the invasion of modernism and liberalism, that it is now a shame to use the voice of the magisterium as the authority for our beliefs?

 

[Sean_O_L]

USMC
Your “re-phrasing” is incorrect AND illogical.

YOU said precisely:
*

Shame on you Sean OL. What the Pope taught does not correspond to what you would have liked him to say, so you attack him?

*Whereas I also provided multiple instances of occasions where Pope Sixtus was plainly mistaken. If you cannot handle that - then, I reply: “Life wasn’t meant to be easy”!
*

 

[Matt16_18]

Sean O L:

Matt16-18 wrote:

I am no Feeneyite, Matt and, here in Australia Feeneyism is practically unknown …

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical From the Housetops, 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. … 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 …

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

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

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Matt16_18 wrote:

Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by the Church for it.

and

it is evident …etc

I agree with what you say in the latter - but NOT in the former, for we must be accurate and truthful on the matter.

The facts are that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated - YES!

For disobedience to lawful orders - that is, he did not obey summonses to Rome - YES!

But (while he may or may not have been suspected of guilt on other charges) he was NOT excommunicated in direct response to any other charge - such as heresy or denial of Dogma.

The Holy Office Letter, written in April 1949, does not threaten excommunication; the excommunication would appear in the Acts of the Apostolic See on 13 Feb. 1953 - almost four years later, during which time a lot of water had flown down the Tiber.

We have to be very careful on these matters.

 

[Matt16_18]

Sean O L:

The facts are that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated - YES!

For disobedience to lawful orders - that is, he did not obey summonses to Rome - YES!

But (while he may or may not have been suspected of guilt on other charges) he was NOT excommunicated in direct response to any other charge - such as heresy or denial of Dogma.

I am well aware that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for formal heresy - he was excommunicated for breaking his vow of obedience by obstinately refusing to go to Rome to defend what he was erroneously teaching in the St. Benedict Center’s, From the Housetops newsletter. Why Fr. Feeney was excommunicated is a trivial point as far as I am concerned. What is germane to this thread, is that the erroneous teaching of Fr. Feeney about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was rebuked in the LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE, and the correct teaching of the Catholic Church was expounded in this letter.

USMC presents the usual “rigorist” Feeneyite argument that the Church teaches that in order for an invincibly ignorant man to be saved, he would necessarily be given access to either a missionary from the Catholic Church, or be given the inspiration from the Holy Spirit to possess explicit faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Which is a denial of what the LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE actually says.

The Fathers of Vatican II cite the LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE (Denz. 3 86972) in Lumen Gentium (16), which shows that they were well aware of the Holy See’s condemnation of Feeney’s “rigorist” view of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

(16) … God [is not] remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.

1. Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3 86972.

 

[Dylan]

USMC:

That is exactly right. The Church teaches that it is possible to be united to the soul of the Church, without being united to the body. This is certainly the exception, but it is possible. For example (and I have used this argument against the Feeneyites), a protestant child, prior to the age of reason, who has been baptized is most certainly united to the soul of the Catholic Church, even though they are not externally united to the visible body.

But a vague implicit, or even explicit, desire to be united to the Church will not suffice without supernatural faith, which is the foundation of the supernatural life.

And even if the person has an explicit desire to belong to the Church as well as supernatural faith they are still not united to her without supernatural Charity, which is the state of grace, as the quote from the Holy Office says: "it is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity.

These minute theologicial realities are not understood by the average Catholic, not should they necessarily be. And that is why the Church, prior to the 1960’s would also speak in the objective order, proclaiming the rule, rather than the exception.

It is also why Pope Pius IX, who is often quoted with regard to invincible ignorance, actually forbade the Bishops of his time to inquire into the possible salvation for those who were in invincible ignorance.

Pope Pius IX: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but on the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate disposition, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ * we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry*” (Denz pg. 416, #1647).

It should also be noted that just because a person is not guilty of the sin of unbelief when they are invincibly ignorant of the truth, that does not mean they are therefore justified. We are not born in the state of grace, and without supernatural faith the state of grace is impossible, since faith is the foundation of the supernatural life.

All this is what Rand believes, though he didn’t say it very well. And here’s to sum it up: one may be saved, if invincibly ignorant, by a certain “supernatural” communion with the Holy Roman Apostolic Church; a non-Catholic Christian may be saved by a certain “supernatural” communion with the Holy Roman Apostolic Church; But our buisness is the do our best to save souls on Earth (see Apostolic Exhortation of Paul VI, On Evangelization in the Modern World), and to pray for those no longer in our hands. Remember that when they do have this “supernatural” communion, they have become Catholic. And remember that Jesus Christ is the High Priest, and can convert whom he pleases.

~Dylan

 

[Sean_O_L]

Matt16-18 wrote:

What is germane to this thread, is that the erroneous teaching of Fr. Feeney about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was rebuked in the LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE, and the correct teaching of the Catholic Church was expounded in this letter.

Agreed - and the rest is “no contest”!

However, what you wrote, specifically was

Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by the Church for it.

Which was incorrect.Feeney was rebuked and corrected in the Holy Office Letter - and was some years later excommunicated, not for that error but for a later error.

 

[Matt16_18]

Sean O L:

However, what you wrote, specifically was …

Actually, it is the author of the article “MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH “ that wrote “Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by the Church for it.”

The Letter of the Holy Office says this: “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.” If this is not a condemnation of Fr. Feeney’s attacks against “the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities”, then it is at least a rebuke of it.

My point hasn’t anything to do with why Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. My point is that the Fathers of Vatican II were well aware of Fr. Feeney’s erroneous “rigorist” interpretation of EENS since they referenced Letter of the Holy Office in LG 16.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Matt16_18 wrote:

Actually, it is the author of the article “MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH “ that wrote “Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by the Church for it.”

Nuance noted - but you DID reproduce it - and implicitly endorsed it.

If this is not a condemnation of Fr. Feeney’s attacks against “the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities”, then it is at least a rebuke of it.

No contest - for that is almost precisely what I stated:

Which was incorrect.Feeney was rebuked and corrected in the Holy Office Letter - and was some years later excommunicated, not for that error but for a later error.

I wished for the matter to be quite clear. But, the point remains: the author of Membership of the Church" appears to be incorrect in claiming that it was a condemnation - which the unwary might equate in practical terms as excommunication.