No Salvation Outside The Church?

[AnneElliot]

guanophore,

We’ve been over this before… Enoch, Elijah, and all the other just of the OT died under the Old Covenant. Baptism was binding after the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus.

Is is possible that God could have chosen to regenerate the soul without water? OF COURSE! God could have chosen any means He so wished. The fact remains, however, that God has chosen to bind regeneration to the Sacrament of Baptism and water is a necessary component for Baptism. This has been revealed through His Church:
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.”
Can. 5 “If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema”
And we are not free to pick and choose and alter the facts of what has been given to us, simply because we don’t like it or it makes us uncomfortable. Water is necessary for Baptism, and Baptism is necessary for Salvation.

 

[inkaneer]

The excommunication was lifted in 1972. Your accusation that it is invalid is a denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. The reasons for the lifting of the excommunication are irrelevent. The Church does not need to justify its actions to you.

Well that is very pharisetical of you. And to question the validity of the lifting of the excommunication is not a denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. Regardless of what any written decree states, a lifting of an excommunication requires certain things one of which is the excommunicant has to make a confession and confess his sin for which he was excommunicated for. In Feeney’s case that was a violation ofhis oath of obedience to the Jesuits and to the Church. There is no evidence that Feeney did that and furthermore there is strong evidence that he went to his grave in defiance of the Church. If that be the case then he could not be reconciled to the church and the decree lifting the excommunication isn’t worth the paper it is written on and therefore Feeney died outside the Church with all that entails. There are other issues regarding his alleged return to the Church that are questionable also. And the one that really bugs me is that nowhere on the internet can one find the actual Church decree document lifting the excommunication. All the data on the internet refers to one Peter Vere a canon lawyer who supposedly verified Feeney’s return. But as pointed out by Paul Melanson in the website associatedcontent.com/article/1120627/feeneyites_catholics_in_good_standing_pg7.html?cat=9

"…Mr. Vere acknowledges that, Fr. Feeney and his “spiritual descendants” (to borrow his own phrase) “have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant” their interpretation of the dogma. But here we encounter an immediate problem. One which a canon lawyer should have recognized straightaway. And it is this: absolution from a censure (such as excommunication) must be lawful. In the new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983, we read in canon 1358 that: "A remission of a censure cannot be granted unless an offender has withdrawn from contumacy in accord with the norm of can. 1347.’ This norm, laid out in canon 1347 states that: "The guilty party is to be said to have withdrawn from contumacy when he or she has truly repented the offense and furthermore has made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised to do so.’

In his commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which said essentially the same thing as the new Code) entitled “A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law,” Charles Augustine Bachofen explained that, “…the purpose of censures is the amendment of the delinquent. Consequently, if he recedes from contumacy or persistent disobedience, he is entitled to absolution and it cannot be licitly withheld from him. Repentance alone, however, is not sufficient for purging oneself of contumacy, but satisfaction and reparation of scandal are required, according to can. 2242. Hence the one who absolves from censure must judge whether the acts performed by the penitent are sufficient” (pp. 141,142) and, “That a censure once contracted can be removed only by a lawful absolution follows from the definition given in can. 2236.” (p. 141).

Under both the old and new Code of Canon Law, a censure can be removed only by lawful absolution, which is described as a withdrawal from “contumacy” or “persistent disobedience” and acts by the penitent such as
“satisfaction and reparation of scandal.” But Mr. Vere has correctly noted that Fr. Feeney and his “spiritual descendants” were allowed to “reconcile” with the Church without first having to renounce or recant their interpretation of the dogma EENS. In other words, without withdrawing from contumacy or persistent disobedience and without having made satisfaction and reparation of scandal. This has resulted in even more scandal within the Church and has caused so much confusion among so many Catholics today.

Can a Feeneyite be a Catholic in good standing with the Church? The Holy Office assured us that such is not possible. Was the “reonciliation” of Fr. Feeney and his “spiritual descendants” licit? Not under Canon Law. (Not) Without withdrawal from contumacy and satisfaction for scandal?"

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed