No Salvation Outside The Church?

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneElliot
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.

Better read the scriptures there JM3. John’s baptism was of no effect. In other words, it did not count. Dismas lived long enough to make itinto the new Covenant which was sealed by Jesus’ death on the cross and not by His resurrection and if you don’t want to accept my word on it then here is what Paul has to say:

“11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15 Therefore He [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” [Hebrews 9:11-22]

 

[inkaneer]

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.

No. Ann, the Old Law ended at the crucifixion not the resurrection. Paul tells us that in Hebrews 9:11-22. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves. According to Paul the New Covenant had begun. Dismas died in the New Covenant.

 

[tqualey]

There you go again, Anne…

It must be very difficult to stay with what the Church has done in this matter… and, for the life of me, I really do not know why.

While you and your friend can split hairs - the meat of the nut is this: Feeney’s teachings on No Salvation Outside The Church WAS CONDEMNED by the Holy Office as heresy. Yes, he was excommunicated for failing to appear to defend his teachings - as opposed to excommunicated for his teaching … and, if this makes a differencs - noting that the teachings were condemned - please explain.

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.

Your contention that the Diocese of Worcester adheres to a teaching that was condemned by the Holy Office is absurd on its face. Period. I did write the Diocese and asked them about this - and, as of yet, there has not been a response. All I can deduce is that your statement that Feeney’s heresy is alive and well in this Diocese of Worcester is WITHOUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. Feeney may have something in print that is not heretical (actually, I would certainly hope so!) but, the Diocese adhereing to Catholic teaching clearnly pronounced and explained by Feeney IS NOT THE ISSUE. Rather, it is his assertion, for example, that all unbaptized babies go to hell - are you saying that the Diocese is teaching this? That is THE issue here.

Seriously, your vague statements about what it is you believe about Feeney - and what the Diocese of Worcester believes are what is causing the probelm. What the Catholic Church has taught on this topic is not the issue - rather it was the false teaching of Feeney this is the subject under discussion as part of this thread. That Feeney was welcomed back to the Church is not my concern - I certainly hope he made it… the irony alone would be hellish indeed!!

So, if you have a link for the Diocese of Worcester that states that unbaptized babies are in hell, that those who have not been baptized are in hell, that those who do not have their names on the local church’s records are in hell or any of the other heretical statements Feeney is credited with making - please provide them. The other way of asking this question is: Does the Diocese of Worcester teach the officially condemned heresy promoted by Feeney? It would be grief for you to have said such things about the Diocese of Worcester - and, them not be true!

God bless

 

[AnneElliot]

No. Ann, the Old Law ended at the crucifixion not the resurrection. . . Dismas died in the New Covenant.

“… 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)

“In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum… and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43)… It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

So, if you have a link for the Diocese of Worcester that states that unbaptized babies are in hell, that those who have not been baptized are in hell,

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments…” Council of Lyons (Denzinger 464)

“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…” Council of Florence (Denzinger 693)
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

“4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm

 

[JM3]

Letter from the Holy Office Concerning Fr. Leonard Feeney
by Cardinal F. Marchetti-Selvaggiani

Your Excellency,

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has very carefully followed the beginning and the continuation of the serious controversy raised by certain associates of the St. Benedict Center and of Boston College, concerning the interpretation of tie maxim: “Outside the Church, no salvation”.

After having examined all the necessary and useful documents on this subject — among others the file sent by your chancellery, the appeals and reports wherein the associates of the St. Benedict Center expound their opinions and objections, besides many other documents referring to this controversy, collected through the official channels, — the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle “outside the Church no salvation” has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities.

Consequently, the most Eminent and most Reverend cardinals of our Supreme Congregation decreed in plenary session on Wednesday 27 July 1949, and the Sovereign Pontiff, in an audience on the following Thursday, 28 July 1949, deigned to approve the sending of the following doctrinal explanations, invitation and exhortations:

We are obliged by the divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things contained in the Word of God, Scripture or Tradition, and proposed by the Church for our faith as divinely revealed, not only by solemn definition but also by her ordinary and universal magisterium (Denziger n. 1792).

Now, amongst those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which says that there is no salvation outside the Church.

This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgement, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there exists a very strict mandate from Jesus Christ, for He explicitly commanded his apostles to teach all nations to observe all things which He Himself had ordered (Matth XXVIII.19-20).

The least of these commandments is not that which orders us to be incorporated through baptism into Christ’s Mystical Body, which is the Church, and to remain united with Him and with His Vicar, through whom, He Himself governs his Church in visible manner here below,

That is why no one will be saved if, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, he nevertheless refuses to submit to her or separates himself from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, Christ’s Vicar on earth.

Not only did our Saviour order all peoples to enter the Church, but He also decreed that it is the means of salvation without which no one can enter the eternal kingdom of glory.

In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man’s ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of “desire” or of “hope”. This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807).

The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.

However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul’s good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.

 

[JM3]

These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 “on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.

Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.

Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who “by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer”. He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state “in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation” and that “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”.

With these words, the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions (cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677).

However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man’s salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children. (Denz., 801)

It is clear, from what is stated above, that the ideas proposed by the periodical From the Housetops (n.3) as the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, are far from being so and are very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her.

Certain conclusions follow from this doctrinal explanation concerning discipline and conduct, which cannot be ignored by those who vigorously defend the need of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops whom the Holy Spirit has made guardians to govern the Church (Acts XX, 28).

That is why it is inexplicable that the St. Benedict Center should claim to be a Catholic group and desire to be considered as such whilst not conforming to the prescripts of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law and continuing to be a cause of discord and of rebellion against the ecclesiastical authority and of disturbance for many consciences.

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand that a member of a religious institute, Fr. Feeney, should present himself as a “defender of the faith” and at the same time not hesitate to attack the teaching given by the legitimate authorities and not even fear to incur the grave sanctions with which he is threatened by the sacred canons for gravely violating his religious duties as a priest and simple member of the Church.

Finally, it is not prudent to tolerate certain Catholics claiming for themselves the right to publish a periodical, with the intention of expounding theological doctrines, without the permission of the competent authority, called the imprimatur as prescribed by the sacred canons.

Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once “Rome has spoken”, they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than for those who adhere to her “only through an unconscious desire”. Let them understand, therefore, that they are children of the Church, affectionately sustained by her with the milk of doctrine and sacraments, and that, after having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot then be excused of culpable ignorance. Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

In addressing him this present letter, I express to Your Excellency my profound regards of esteem and devotion.

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

link to St. Benedict Center - catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

 

[JM3]

“… 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)

“In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum… and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43)… It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments…” Council of Lyons (Denzinger 464)

“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…” Council of Florence (Denzinger 693)
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

“4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm

 

[JM3]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

III. DEGREES OF HERESY

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formulae of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next,** a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology.** Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savoring, of heresy

 

[itinerant1]

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments…” Council of Lyons

“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…” Council of Florence

What is the context for the aformentioned statements?

First, an overly narrow understanding of the necessity for baptism, has led many Catholics, at various times, to forcefully baptize the children of non-Christians. Recall attempts to baptize Jewish children in order that that might be saved. The Church disapproved of such practices.

Those who categorically assert that infants who die without baptism are consigned to hell are merely extending to infants their narrow understanding of “No salvation outside the Church.” Nonetheless, no one can say with any certainty, who actually dies with original sin. This is the conditional situation to be cognizant about, when reading the foregoing statements from the Councils of Lyons and Florence. We did not know, and should not pretend to know like gnostics, just what the activities are of the Holy Spirit in regard to the human soul “at the moment of death”.

An overly narrow view of baptism conflicts with the notion of the ‘baptism of desire’:

"The baptism of desire is based on the belief that Christ desired all people to be saved. The saving action of our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection eternally radiates touching even those people who may not explicitly ever have the benefit of missionary activity, come to know the gospel or receive the Lord through the Sacrament of Baptism. The Vatican II stated:

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery” (Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, No.1260)."

If the baptism of desire can suffice for salvation, by what reason does one exclude infants dying without baptism from salvation? The Church has never definitively articulated the situation regarding infants. That this is a fact should be obvious by the theological speculations on this matter throughout the Middle Ages. Recall the speculative doctrine of the limbo of children taught by Aquinas. Accordingly, children dying without baptism were in a state of perfect happiness, yet they were without the Beatific Vision. Furthermore, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

"There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23]”

“Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated “as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children’s limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire”;” CE

Absent definitive teaching (de fide) on the fate of infants dying without baptism, speculative theology strives to formulate views consistent with the proper understanding of “No salvation outside the Church.”

Today, the Church says,

“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,” 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 (CCC 1261).”

What should we think today of the view that states infants dying without baptism are consigned to an eternity of punshiment in the hell? Besides such a view having been condemned by the Church, I think that view today is more inhumane and more un-Christian than the view that approves of abortion of any unwanted child. The pro-abortion view advocates killing the body of the pre-natal children. The theological extremist on baptism advocates killing the souls of all pre-natal children murdered by abortion, as well as all post-natal children who have died without baptism.

Abortionist advocates will talk of unwanted children, but as far as Jesus is concerned, there are no unwanted children. So, let not anyone try to take any child from Jesus by consigning him to hell by means of an errant and extremely narrow view of baptism.

 

[itinerant1]

Was Father Feeney vehemently anti-Jew?

The Point Magazine — Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict Center:
“Essential to the understanding of our chaotic times is the knowledge that the Jewish race constitutes a united anti-Christian bloc within Christian society, and is working for the overthrow of that society by every means at its disposal.” — April 1958.

(Combine the foregoing view with the following statement and what do you get?)

:
What does Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus mean?
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (or EENS) is a Latin phrase meaning “Outside the Church (There Is) No Salvation”. Father Feeney taught it in what he regarded as its traditional and infallibly defined form; namely, that all non-Catholics will be eternally damned unless they convert to Catholicism.

---

According to Fr. Feeney, as Editor of the Point Magazine, all Jews are not only going to Hell, they are creating hell here on earth. Feeney believes Communism is a Jewish phenomena, and since the Virgin Mary, in an apparition, spoke about the evils Communism, she was by implication, according to Fr. Feeney, speaking about the evils of the Jewish race.

However, Communism is not Jewish. The Communist Manifesto was penned by Karl Marx, a hardcore atheist and philosophical materialist. He came from a Jewish background but he himself was not a practicing Jew; and the Manifesto does not advocate traditional Jewish philosophic or economic ideas.

During the WW II era there were a number of Jewish intellectuals who sympathized and supported Communism over the National Socialism of the Third Reich. That does not give reason to equate communist socialism with the Jewish race. Communism oppressed the Jews in Russia. And what about all of the prominent Jews that were not communists, such as Martin Buber?

Not only did Fr. Feeney teach rank theology, he taught non-sense historical and political ideas.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JM3,

This is truly amazing… at least to me

Here we have a clearly written document in English from the Holy Office condeming Feeney’s interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church” - and a link that clearly says - even though they adhere to Feeney’s heresy - they are united to the Catholic Church. Since one document contradicts the other - we are now to choose which of these to believe! About all I can say is that you accept the pronouncement by the Catholic Church that Feeney’s view is heretical - or you foolishly throw your lot in with these heretics. The CC has already condemned these guys - claiming they have not been condemned appears profoundly delusional. Even the ‘fig leaf’ covering of acting in good faith has been striped away by the Holy Office: the teaching of Feeney and his followers is FALSE.

Now, JM3, after having taken the time and effort to distribute this to the list - you give a questionalbe " " to Anne’s post which cites certain Church statements - while omitting this more recent 1949 statement from the Holy Office - that appear to affirm Feeney’s heresy.

What is your point? Either you agree with the Holy Office’s condemnation of Feeney’s teaching - or - you don’t (and it appears you don’t based on previous posts and this apparent encouragement to Anne), who obviously believes Feeney was right.

The link you provided was very proud to state that there is no longer a sanction against Feeney (while omitting that there was BOTH and excommunication for failing to obey a command to come to Rome AND a condemnation for his heretical teaching - and explaining how they got there). The link you provided boasts of their current Abbot being a supporter of Feeney and still within the Catholic Church and of a high ranking member of a lay organization. How wonderful…

These guys omit the condemnation from the Holy Office and continue to march like noting has happened - and … I guess … continue to preach and teach Feeney’s heresy without acknowledging it to be already condemned. What kind of confusion is this - and what is it you are trying to spread? It certainly does not look like obedience to the teachings of the Catholic Church specific to this 1949 pronouncement.

So what’s the answer: is Feeney right or the Catholic Church - because this is what you have reduced the matter to.

God bless

These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 “on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). EDITED FOR BREVITY …

That is why it is inexplicable that the St. Benedict Center should claim to be a Catholic group and desire to be considered as such whilst not conforming to the prescripts of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law and continuing to be a cause of discord and of rebellion against the ecclesiastical authority and of disturbance for many consciences.

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand that a member of a religious institute, Fr. Feeney, should present himself as a “defender of the faith” and at the same time not hesitate to attack the teaching given by the legitimate authorities and not even fear to incur the grave sanctions with which he is threatened by the sacred canons for gravely violating his religious duties as a priest and simple member of the Church.

Finally, it is not prudent to tolerate certain Catholics claiming for themselves the right to publish a periodical, with the intention of expounding theological doctrines, without the permission of the competent authority, called the imprimatur as prescribed by the sacred canons.

Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once “Rome has spoken”, they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than for those who adhere to her “only through an unconscious desire”. Let them understand, therefore, that they are children of the Church, affectionately sustained by her with the milk of doctrine and sacraments, and that, after having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot then be excused of culpable ignorance. Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

link to St. Benedict Center - catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JM3,

Notwithstanding this definition - you are left with a 1949 condemnation from the Holy Office that struck down Feeney’s interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Church”.

To insist that this is not a heresy and - like this Benedictine community - praise Feeney’s work - is nothing short of folly leading separation from the Catholic Church.

You really can not waltz around with the Catholic Encyclopedia statement when confronted by the statement from the Holy Office. Please just take a moment and consider where you are placing your faith - and it does not appear to be with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. The line has been drawn - so now, it is only a question of which side of the line you are standing on. And, just to be clear about this - I am saying that unbaptized babies (and, all of those who were murdered in their mother’s wombs) are not in hell… where Feeney has them placed.

Just where do you stand on this?

God bless

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

III. DEGREES OF HERESY

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formulae of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next,** a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology.** Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savoring, of heresy

 

[tqualey]

Anne,

You are really barking up the wrong tree here. You appear to be interpretating statements in a way different from the teaching’s of the Catholic Church - and for a good source, look at the previous posts on the document from the Holy Office which condemns Feeney’s teaching.

In brief, Feeney’s interpretatin has been carried off the field :stretcher: Those who endorse his condemned interpretation will be separating themselves from the Catholic Church - and promoting scandal at the same time.

God bless

“… 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)

“In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum… and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43)… It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments…” Council of Lyons (Denzinger 464)

“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…” Council of Florence (Denzinger 693)
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

“4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm

 

[inkaneer]

“… 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."U]The Catechism of the Council of Trent

, p. 158 (St. Benedict Press edition)

Really??? Then what about St. Emerenfiana? She was an unbaptized catechumen who was martyred. She is a canonized saint in the Church and her feast day is January 23And these sacred writers that you speak of. Which of them denied Baptism by Blood or Desire as did your beloved Leonard Feeney?

Not Cyprian of Carthage who wrote:

“[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church.”
[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]" (Letters 72[73]:21-22 [A.D. 253]).

And Cyril of Jerusalem

“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

Note what Augustine says:

“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]” (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

And again maybe Augustine had Feeney in mind when he wrote:

"“Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (Letters 141:5 [A.D. 412]).

 

[inkaneer]

“… “In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum… and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43)… It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments…” Council of Lyons (Denzinger 464)

“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…” Council of Florence (Denzinger 693)
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

“4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm

This whole section is meaningless to the discussion. The essence of the discussion is that Feeney denied any Baptism other than water Baptism. And thus according to your beloved Feeney, St Emerenfiana was condemned to hell. Feeney denied Baptism of Desire as well as Baptism of Blood which the early writers and the Church have acknowledged were just as valid in effecting salvation as Baptism of water.

 

[JM3]

**Feeney denied Baptism of Desire as well as Baptism of Blood **which the early writers and the Church have acknowledged were just as valid in effecting salvation as Baptism of water.

Again, statements without proof.

 

[JM3]

To tqualey and inkaneer.

I have tried, and I guess failed, to get you to understand what really happened with Father Feeney and St. Benedict Center.

Your refusal to understand and insist that they are heretics, seperated from the Church and condemned to hell shows a great lack of charity.

I know where my faith is. Vatican II teaches in Lumen Gentium what the Church has always taught.

Including this: “He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.” LG(14)

From the Protocol of 1949: " **the Pope condemns **those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as **those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions **(cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677)."

&

“it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by** perfect **charity.”

It is your free will to judge as you want. As for me, I am done with this thread.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Feeney denied Baptism of Desire as well as Baptism of Blood which the early writers and the Church have acknowledged were just as valid in effecting salvation as Baptism of water.

Again, statements without proof.

Okay, here is your proof from the mouth of your god Leonard Feeney himself from his book Bread of Life:

“In the New Testament, you cannot be justified unless you want the water Jesus bequeathed us on the Mount of Olives: and you cannot he saved until that water is poured on your head!. . . it is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot he justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.”
Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of I.ife, (Still River: Saint Benedict Center, 1952), p. 251

There is your proof. :dancing:

 

[inkaneer]

To tqualey and inkaneer.

I have tried, and I guess failed, to get you to understand what really happened with Father Feeney and St. Benedict Center.

Your refusal to understand and insist that they are heretics, seperated from the Church and condemned to hell shows a great lack of charity.

I know where my faith is. Vatican II teaches in Lumen Gentium what the Church has always taught.

Including this: “He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.” LG(14)

From the Protocol of 1949: " **the Pope condemns **those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as **those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions **(cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677)."

&

“it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by** perfect **charity.”

It is your free will to judge as you want. As for me, I am done with this thread.

On the contrary we understand exactly what occurred with Leonard Feeney. He was excommunicated for disobedience, for explicitly violating his vows to his order and to the Church and failing to subject both himself and his teaching to competent Church authorities. Leonard Feeney showed no charity what so ever. Unlike Luther who defended his teaching when summoned by the church, Feeney was a coward. It was the church, who in 1972 offered charity to Feeney because of his failing health to offer reconciliation to him. However, there is no evidence that Feeney complied with the standard for such reconciliation by foregoing his erroroneous teaching or repenting of his sin of disobedience both of which are necessary for reconciliation. Without these Feeneys return to the church is not worth the paper it is printed on. There is even a question, not discussed here, if the entire matter of his return was proper as it was not conducted by the bishop who excommunicated him. Did Feeney die outside the church? I don’t know but as I said before; when I get to heaven and if I see that Feeney is not there I won’t be surprised.

“Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (St. Augustine, Letters 141:5 [A.D. 412]).

 

[AnneElliot]

Really??? Then what about St. Emerenfiana? She was an unbaptized catechumen who was martyred. She is a canonized saint in the Church and her feast day is January 23

Just because there is no record of her Baptism does not mean that she was not Baptized… in the time(s) of persecution catechumens were often Baptized quickly while still receiving instruction in the Faith. Just as today, if there is a danger of death, the Church does not hesitate to Baptize. But while they are still undergoing instruction in the Faith, they are still referred to as ‘catechumens’:

First Council of Nicea, Can. 2: “For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism…” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p 6)

Council of Braga, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Vol 2, 1907, p 265)

Similarly, regarding the accounts of the Martyrology…
“Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote (them) are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of light mockery arise.” Pope St. Gelasius I, “Decretal”, The Authority of the Councils and the Fathers (Denzinger 165)

“For guides we have appropriate documents. These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray. Especially unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs.” (The Age of Martyrs by Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti)

From Fr. John Laux’s Church History:
“If he was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and that the soul of the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the perfect happiness of heaven.”