No Salvation Outside The Church?

[itinerant1]

Dismas died before the Resurrection of Jesus, thus, He died under the Old Law and not the New Law.

In the context of the original statement made about Dismas, your post involves a fallacy of relevance, *ignoratio elenchi. *That is, whether or not Dismas died under the new or old dispensation, which is a separate matter in itself to be determined regarding whether you are in error, the position involves the problem as to whether Dismas, in the the biblical account, was saved specifically in the view of Fr. Feeney’s perspective. This matter you have completely side-stepped with your response.

You are still invited to make a relevant response to the original post about Dismas.

 

[Pitcharan]

In the context of the original statement made about Dismas, your post involves a fallacy of relevance, *ignoratio elenchi. *That is, whether or not Dismas died under the new or old dispensation, which is a separate matter in itself to be determined regarding whether you are in error, the position involves the problem as to whether Dismas, in the the biblical account, was saved specifically in the view of Fr. Feeney’s perspective. This matter you have completely side-stepped with your response.

You are still invited to make a relevant response to the original post about Dismas.

If one were to apply Feeneyism to the old law, then salvation would be restricted to circumcised Jews. However, this is contrary to what our Lord taught. Therefore Feeneyism is the resurrected form of Phariseeism and the likes of Anne believe in ‘risen Pharisees’ rather than the risen Lord

 

[Sir_Knight]

Search this thread and you’ll find that others have already done it.

Hmmmm … the last time I said that, I was giving a warning by the staff and my post was deleted

 

[itinerant1]

Hmmmm … the last time I said that, I was giving a warning by the staff and my post was deleted

Huh? Why would such a response would merit a warning, is beyond me. One may not like the response, but it seems pick-uny to tag it or complain about it.

 

[itinerant1]

TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most, at EWTN.

Every one should read this article. It clearly spells out Fr. Feeney’s gross heretical views and that his uncharitable views were officially condemned by the Vatican. No one can simultaneously be a Feeneyite and a true Roman Catholic.

Excerpts:

First, he [Fr. Feeney] was excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney’s error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant…

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance.

Read the rest of this article

 

[tqualey]

Wwwwwwwwoooooooooooooow, there JM3,

Hold on there a minute. Don’t shout… stay calm

prove it!!!

I think you jumped the gun on Pitcharan’s perfectly valid and accurate statement.

The real problem lies in the way Anne has hijacked this thread - which was discussing “No Salvation Outside The Church” and keeps on avoiding that Feeney engaged in heresy. Yes, she is right about not judging the intentions of Feeney who was accepted back into to the Church - but, again - so what. The issue was his heresy, not his conversion. The sheer number distractions or ‘red herrings’ she has single-handedly placed on this thread are astounding. And, efforts to correct her multiple errors have only resulted in more posts with the correct presentation simpy being ignored by her.

For example - rahter than address the heresy of Feeney:

• she asserts he was exommunicated for failing to travel to Rome rather than for his errors in understanding and than agreeing with the Church’s teaching about “No Salvation Outside The Church”
• she confuses a clearly written statement about protecting the lives of others through using appropriate force to stop an attacker which may result in the death of the attacker - and continues to post like no one has correct her error(s).
• she again changes the topic to land on this figure of speech about ‘truths falling from heaven’ - as an example of Modernism being condemned… What does this have to do with anything? If simply viewed as one of Anne’s efforts to derail or hijack this thread so as to avoid Feeney’s heresy her behavior will make more sense.

You know… they have these signs in the woods that say, “Don’t Feed The Bears” - and while they are mainly intended for those big furry creatures that can turn on you when you run out of food … they can be interpreted as trying to sincerely debate with someone whose purpose is apparent confusion and sophistry.

Again, let me invite those who want to discuss this thread - back to the thead and invite Anne to start her own thread on any and all topics that suit her fancy.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Itinerant1

Great post!

Thanks for the link!

God bless

TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most, at EWTN.

Every one should read this article. It clearly spells out Fr. Feeney’s gross heretical views and that his uncharitable views were officially condemned by the Vatican. No one can simultaneously be a Feeneyite and a true Roman Catholic.

Excerpts:

First, he [Fr. Feeney] was excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney’s error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant…

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance.

Read the rest of this article

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
And what of Dismas, you know the Good Thief whom Jesus promised would be with Him in paradise? He did not receive water baptism and He wasn’t martyred either. No saint bilocated to preach the Gospel to him and no one raised him from the dead either. According to Feeney he was condemned but Jesus disagrees with Feeney. WOW!!! There’s a pic 'em for you! Who to believe, Jesus or Feeney?

Dismas died before the Resurrection of Jesus, thus, He died under the Old Law and not the New Law.

Well that does not help you. If he died under the old law as a Jew then He was outside the church and according to Feeney comndemned to hell. Another thing is that it is the Crucuifixion and Jesus’ death not the Resurrection that is the dividing line between the New and the Old Covenants. Dismas died after Jesus because the soldiers broke his legs to quicken his death but saw that Jesus was already dead. So Dismas made it into the New Covenant but did not under go water Baptism. Again, according to Feeney he was condemned but Jesus said otherwise.

 

[inkaneer]

The excommunication of Father Feeney was lifted in 1972. He died in 1978, a full member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I find your condemnation of Father Feeney undocumented and uncharitable.

You should worry about your own ‘true contrition’.

And you, yours. None the less I stand by my statement. If Feeney did not recant of his position before his death and subject himself to the authority of the church, there being no evidence to indicate he did so, then the reconciliation of 1972 was indeed null and void and not worth the paper it was printed on. I cannot think how ironic it would be if his own disobedience placed Feeney outside the Church and thus doomed him to hell.

 

[AnneElliot]

There are some posts here which indicate that more than a few do not know what Fr. Feeney taught. This, however, is irrelevant. There are religious orders that are ‘spiritual descendants’ of Fr. Feeney who hold his understanding of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. They are in good standing with the Church. You are free to contact them or the Diocese of Worcester in which they reside to discover this for yourselves.

These are the facts, without any nuances. The words of the Popes and texts of the Councils themselves… I don’t need theologians to tell me what the Papal and Conciliar documents say, they are clear and definitive. I see that we will not all readily agree on this and I’m not sure what the point of further discussion could be since I refuse to embrace a theologian’s opinion that opposes what has been clearly written.

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

“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, Unam Sanctam

“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, Cantate Domino

“Whoever wishes to be saved needs, above everything else, to hold the Catholic faith. Unless each one preserves this faith whole and inviolate, he will perish in eternity without a doubt.” Pope Eugene IV, Exultate Deo

“The Church…regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own…The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium…Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adultress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ…He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #5, #9

“Where is the road which leads us to Jesus Christ? It is the Church. It is our duty to recall to everyone, great and small, the absolute necessity we are under to have recourse to this Church in order to work out our eternal salvation.” Pope St. Pius X,* Iucunda Sane* #9

Can. 5 “If anyone shall say that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema” Council of Trent, Session VII, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism

Can. 2. “If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, Session VII, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism

Trent, Decree on Justification, ch. 2 “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated… so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”

Trent, Decree on Justification, ch. 7 “the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified”

No doubt it is [absolutely speaking] possible for God to save men by any means He pleases; and He could have saved all mankind through the merits of anyone thing that Jesus Christ did or suffered, without requiring such a severe sacrifice from Him as His death upon the Cross. But what God can do in this respect is nothing to our purpose: the great question is what He has done. Now, we see from the whole tenor of revelation that God has appointed true Faith in Jesus Christ, and the being a member of His Church, as conditions of salvation; that He has appointed them as essential conditions, so that none will or can be saved without them; that the Word of God points out no other possible means; that whatever extraordinary means He may sometimes use to bring people to His Church, yet, according to what He has said in the above texts, it is impossible He can have reserved any extraordinary means of salvation for those who live and die not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by true Faith, otherwise He would contradict Himself, which is impossible.

Archbishop George Hay, The Sincere Christian
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sincere_Christian/Volume_2/Chapter_29

The good Archbishop lived and died in good standing with the Church. I am not a ‘Feeneyite’, I follow Archbishop Hay, Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Mueller, Fr. Arnold Damen and numerous other Catholics in good standing who have defended Catholic dogma.

 

[inkaneer]

This discussion should not be about what we guess to be Fr. Feeney’s private disposition, which is known only to God. The issue should remain focussed on whether what is called “Fenneyism” was determined, in some official manner by the Church, to be heretical.

I previously quoted from and also posted links to articles that answer in the affirmative. Furthermore, the authors of said articles also see every indication that Fr. Feeney sincerely repented and was reconciled to the Church before he died. That is good enough for me. Suppose for a moment that Fr. Feeney never repented. It matters not in regard to whether his narrow interpretation of *extra ecclesiam, nulla salus *was a serious theological error.

Compare/contrast Feeney with Luther. Feeney was summoned [several times] to appear before an inquiry into his teaching and refused to do so. He was therefore excommunicated for his disobedience. In addition the Vatican put out a “position paper” on the church’s position on *extra ecclesiam, nulla salus * which did not agree with Feeney’s position. Would that have changed if Feeney did appear to defend his position. Most likely not. Now Luther did appear at his inquiry and defended his position. As such he had more courage than Feeney. Luther was condemned for his theology not his disobedience. Once Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience how could he be excommunicated again for his theology? Can one be excommunicated twice? By the way, there is no evidence that Feeney ever repented of his disobedience. There was no public acknowledgement by him of his disobedience and no evidence of any repentance. That whole area remains rather murky as to how the excommunication was lifted and by whom. Seems to me that Feeney had several friends in the Worster diocese where his alleged reconciliation supposedly occurred but he was excommunicated in the Boston Archdiocese. That is important because in the matter of an excommunication and depending on which type only the person [bishop or his successor] who imposed the excommunication can remove it. In addition for an excommunication to be lifted and after absolution from excommunication has been given the person absolved of excommunication is sent to a confessor, that his sin may be remitted. For that to occur the excommunicant must repent for his sin [in this case disobedience] or else it is null and void. There is no evidence this was done in Feeneys case. In fact the evidence points indicates that Feeney did not repent.

 

[JM3]

Wwwwwwwwoooooooooooooow, there JM3,

Hold on there a minute. Don’t shout… stay calm

I think you jumped the gun on Pitcharan’s perfectly valid and accurate statement.

His Statement: “an excommunicated heretic” & " false arguments that the excommunication was for disobedience and not for heresy."

These are neither ‘accurate’, nor ‘valid’. As Father Feeney is NOT an excommunicated heretic. The excommunication was lifted in 1972. He was excommunicated for disobedience, as has been stated by myself (post #709) and also in the previous post to yours (post #782), or did you miss this? Pitcharan makes statements and claims without providing proof of his statements. Yes, the large print may have been excessive, but I wanted him to notice it.

The real problem lies in the way Anne has hijacked this thread - which was discussing “No Salvation Outside The Church” and keeps on avoiding that Feeney engaged in heresy. Yes, she is right about not judging the intentions of Feeney who was accepted back into to the Church - but, again - so what.

So, what? How readily you dismiss her when she is right and attack when you think you see error.

The issue was his heresy, not his conversion. The sheer number distractions or ‘red herrings’ she has single-handedly placed on this thread are astounding. And, efforts to correct her multiple errors have only resulted in more posts with the correct presentation simpy being ignored by her.

I have not seen any errors. Only attempts to get you to see things in another way. Granted, she has not been clear on many of her points, but I have corrected her on this. We will see if she persists.

For example - rahter than address the heresy of Feeney:

• she asserts he was exommunicated for failing to travel to Rome rather than for his errors in understanding

and she is correct, as stated above.

and than agreeing with the Church’s teaching about “No Salvation Outside The Church”

• she confuses a clearly written statement about protecting the lives of others through using appropriate force to stop an attacker which may result in the death of the attacker - and continues to post like no one has correct her error(s).
• she again changes the topic to land on this figure of speech about ‘truths falling from heaven’ - as an example of Modernism being condemned… What does this have to do with anything? If simply viewed as one of Anne’s efforts to derail or hijack this thread so as to avoid Feeney’s heresy her behavior will make more sense.

You know… they have these signs in the woods that say, “Don’t Feed The Bears” - and while they are mainly intended for those big furry creatures that can turn on you when you run out of food … they can be interpreted as trying to sincerely debate with someone whose purpose is apparent confusion and sophistry.

Your condescending analogy shows a lack of charity.

Again, let me invite those who want to discuss this thread - back to the thead and invite Anne to start her own thread on any and all topics that suit her fancy.

God bless

 

[JM3]

Compare/contrast Feeney with Luther. Feeney was summoned [several times] to appear before an inquiry into his teaching and refused to do so. He was therefore excommunicated for his disobedience. In addition the Vatican put out a “position paper” on the church’s position on *extra ecclesiam, nulla salus * which did not agree with Feeney’s position. Would that have changed if Feeney did appear to defend his position. Most likely not. Now Luther did appear at his inquiry and defended his position. As such he had more courage than Feeney. Luther was condemned for his theology not his disobedience. Once Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience how could he be excommunicated again for his theology? Can one be excommunicated twice? By the way, there is no evidence that Feeney ever repented of his disobedience. There was no public acknowledgement by him of his disobedience and no evidence of any repentance. That whole area remains rather murky as to how the excommunication was lifted and by whom. Seems to me that Feeney had several friends in the Worster diocese where his alleged reconciliation supposedly occurred but he was excommunicated in the Boston Archdiocese. That is important because in the matter of an excommunication and depending on which type only the person [bishop or his successor] who imposed the excommunication can remove it. In addition for an excommunication to be lifted and after absolution from excommunication has been given the person absolved of excommunication is sent to a confessor, that his sin may be remitted. For that to occur the excommunicant must repent for his sin [in this case disobedience] or else it is null and void. There is no evidence this was done in Feeneys case. In fact the evidence points indicates that Feeney did not repent.

You are not his judge or his jury.

“He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.” Lumen Gentium (14)

 

[JM3]

And what of Dismas, you know the Good Thief whom Jesus promised would be with Him in paradise? ** He did not receive water baptism **and He wasn’t martyred either. No saint bilocated to preach the Gospel to him and no one raised him from the dead either. According to Feeney he was condemned but Jesus disagrees with Feeney. WOW!!! There’s a pic 'em for you! Who to believe, Jesus or Feeney?

Do you have proof of this?

If not, then your statement is invalid.

 

[AnneElliot]

Do you have proof of this?

If not, then your statement is invalid.

Dismas converted on the cross next to Our Lord. I can’t think of anyone who contends that he received the Sacrament of Baptism. However, this is irrelevant, since, as I said before, Dismas died under the Old Law and thus the necessity of receiving Baptism was not in force. When Dismas died on the cross he went to the Limbo of the Fathers with the rest of the justified from the Old Testament who died under the Old Law to await Christ’s triumphant entry into Heaven after His Ascension when the gates of Heaven were opened.

 

[JM3]

Dismas converted on the cross next to Our Lord.** I can’t think of anyone who contends that he received the Sacrament of Baptism.** However, this is irrelevant, since, as I said before, Dismas died under the Old Law and thus the necessity of receiving Baptism was not in force. When Dismas died on the cross he went to the Limbo of the Fathers with the rest of the justified from the Old Testament who died under the Old Law to await Christ’s triumphant entry into Heaven after His Ascension when the gates of Heaven were opened.

I have no proof as to whether he received Baptism or not. Perhaps he did from John the Baptist or perhaps he did not. How he was saved is not for us to speculate, only praise God that he is saved.

 

[JM3]

Dismas converted on the cross next to Our Lord. I can’t think of anyone who contends that he received the Sacrament of Baptism. However, this is irrelevant, since, as I said before,** Dismas died under the Old Law and thus the necessity of receiving Baptism was not in force. When Dismas died on the cross he went to the Limbo of the Fathers with the rest of the justified from the Old Testament who died under the Old Law to await Christ’s triumphant entry into Heaven after His Ascension when the gates of Heaven were opened**.

What of the baptism of John the Baptist? (reference Matthew 21:25, Mark 11:30 and Luke 20:4)

And baptism by the disciples of Jesus in John 4:2?

If what you say is Church teaching, please give references and comfirm your statement.

 

[AnneElliot]

What of the baptism of John the Baptist? (reference Matthew 21:25, Mark 11:30 and Luke 20:4)

And baptism by the disciples of Jesus in John 4:2?

If what you say is Church teaching, please give references and comfirm your statement.

Can. 1. “If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same effect as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, Session VII, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism

“In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, ch. 4

“… sacred writers are agreed, that when, after the Resurrection of our Lord, He gave to His Apostles the command:* ‘Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost*’ from that time all who were to attain eternal salvation began to be bound by the law of baptism." The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 158 (St. Benedict Press edition)

1 Peter 3:18-20 “Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.”

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Compare/contrast Feeney with Luther. Feeney was summoned [several times] to appear before an inquiry into his teaching and refused to do so. He was therefore excommunicated for his disobedience. In addition the Vatican put out a “position paper” on the church’s position on extra ecclesiam, nulla salus which did not agree with Feeney’s position. Would that have changed if Feeney did appear to defend his position. Most likely not. Now Luther did appear at his inquiry and defended his position. As such he had more courage than Feeney. Luther was condemned for his theology not his disobedience. Once Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience how could he be excommunicated again for his theology? Can one be excommunicated twice? By the way, there is no evidence that Feeney ever repented of his disobedience. There was no public acknowledgement by him of his disobedience and no evidence of any repentance. That whole area remains rather murky as to how the excommunication was lifted and by whom. Seems to me that Feeney had several friends in the Worster diocese where his alleged reconciliation supposedly occurred but he was excommunicated in the Boston Archdiocese. That is important because in the matter of an excommunication and depending on which type only the person [bishop or his successor] who imposed the excommunication can remove it. In addition for an excommunication to be lifted and after absolution from excommunication has been given the person absolved of excommunication is sent to a confessor, that his sin may be remitted. For that to occur the excommunicant must repent for his sin [in this case disobedience] or else it is null and void. There is no evidence this was done in Feeneys case. In fact the evidence points indicates that Feeney did not repent.

You are not his judge or his jury.

“He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.” Lumen Gentium (14)

I never claimed to be his judge or his jury. All I did was point out matters that have yet to be explained. The best explanation I have been able to draw is that Feeney’s reconciliation was an act of carity on behalf of the church Feeny excommunicated himself from. Feeney certainly showed no signs of charity. Rather puffed up by pride he placed himself above the church. That is my discernment. I’m not judging him but let’s just say that when the day comes that I enter the heavenly kingdom and looking around I do not see Leomard Feeney, I won’t be surprised.

By the way, if you think of me as his judge and jury you must be part of his defense team.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
And what of Dismas, you know the Good Thief whom Jesus promised would be with Him in paradise? He did not receive water baptism and He wasn’t martyred either. No saint bilocated to preach the Gospel to him and no one raised him from the dead either. According to Feeney he was condemned but Jesus disagrees with Feeney. WOW!!! There’s a pic 'em for you! Who to believe, Jesus or Feeney?

Do you have proof of this?

If not, then your statement is invalid.

Your logic is faulty. You want me to prove that these things did not happen. In other words to prove a negative event. Rather if you deny that they did not happen then you prove they did. As the great Jerome said to Helvidius:

""We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . " (*Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 21 *[A.D. 383])

Likewise I say that the Good Thief was promised paradise because we read it in Luke 23:43. I say he was not baptized with water nor martyred because we do not read it. Now I would be perfectly willing to listen to any proof that you may have that will prove me wrong but quite frankly I don’t think you got any.