No Salvation Outside The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AnneElliot said:
🙂

Yes, Baptism is the door to the Church… I stated this earlier in the thread.

Pope Pius XII, *Mystici Corporis Christi *“22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized **and **profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, “41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”

Possible… yes, of course, if they convert and embrace the true Faith.
Click to expand...
That last sentence of yours shows you for what you really are, a Feeneyite. You chop quoted the very Pope Pius XII who confirmed the excommunication of Leonard Feeney for his position denying the possibility of salvation to protestants.
 
inkaneer said:
That last sentence of yours shows you for what you really are, a Feeneyite. You chop quoted the very Pope Pius XII who confirmed the excommunication of Leonard Feeney for his position denying the possibility of salvation to protestants.
Click to expand...
I am not a “Feeneyite”.

Though, for whatever it’s worth, Fr. Feeney died reconciled to the Church without having to recant his position on the Dogma and several of his followers and their religious communities are in good standing with the Church and listed on the website for the Diocese of Worcester. 🤷

I did not ‘chop quote’ anything either. It’d be rather hard to copy and paste the entire encyclical and trust that people would read it.
 
JohnCS said:
Hello and thankyou for the response. That is my point, I 100% support what the church teaches, and I have seen what the catechism says, but it leaves a little bit to interpretation. So where do I put my belief? Small possibility that a few who live near perfect lives despite not having the sacraments, or a near free pass to everyone who chooses not to believe Church doctrine because their conscience demands it of them?How much do we need to “know” to know the church. There are people in the church who support abortion rights…is it not possible to assume that they don’t know any better… they don’t know the Truth? What is the difference between knowing and believing? Protestants who come to this sight have seen the Truth and the arguments for it…yet they don’t believe it, can they say that they don’t know it? I am not arguing here, this is another honest question that has me wondering. Is there an authority that has written speciffically about the meaning of invincible ignorance? Do I need to go over to the Philosophy section to ask the difference between knowing and believing?
Oh, my cite is John 6:18
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, **unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. (bolding is mine) I said must, Christ says unless…
Thanks for the help and God bless
Click to expand...
I find your statement about the Catechism , “but it leaves a little bit to interpretation” difficult to understand. The words of Catechism Articles Nos. 846 & 846 are perfectly clear to me. I suppose one could “misinterpret” the Catechism by adding unwritten thoughts and using a far stretch of one’s imagination. To “know” the Church is the full realization, without doubt, that the CC is the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ. For a non-Catholic, who searches the history of Christianity, through books and by way of logic “knows” the CC, realizing that the CC is the one, true Church, yet denies CC doctrine, then Catechism No.846 applies to him/her, “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it …”

In my opinion, anyone who supports abortion rights has thoughts contrary to one of the Ten Commandments, handed down by God to Moses – the one that states, “Thou shalt not kill.” Is this Christian thinking? They should know better if they’re true Catholics.

Once again, can you cite the book, chapter, verse and line(s) in the Catholic Douay Rheims bible where I can find “"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him?”

And is it anywhere that says that whoever doesn’t eat my flesh and drink my blood doesn’t have eternal life? There are exceptions to just about every rule.

Hope this helps you. I will pray for you, and God bless!
 
Emerite said:
I find your statement about the Catechism , “but it leaves a little bit to interpretation” difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
I think it is pretty much impossible to write a book that will make a very complex subject perfectly clear to every reader.

The CCC is written a pretty high educational level, I wouldn’t expect your average highschool student to be able to understand everything written there without any guidance.

That said it is certainly orders of magnitude more difficult for an individual to pull the doctrines of the Christian faith out of the bible than it is to understand what the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism.

Chuck
 
inkaneer said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Membership in the church occurs at Baptism. That is why the early church equated Baptism with circumcision. Well, that and Paul’s words in Col 2:11-12:

" 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [Col 2:11-12]

Okay then, Membership in the Church occurs at Baptism. That is why the early Church equated Baptism with circumcision. Well, that and Paul’s words in Col 2:11-12:

" 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [Col 2:11-12]

So in your example a child of eight is in the Church if she was Baptized as an infant. And since the Church recognizes most protestant Baptisms as valid then protestants are in the Church by virtue of their valid baptism.
Click to expand...
😦 I understood your changing the “c” to “C” the first time. You didn’t have to keep repeating the change of color. I’m not stupid and I don’t appreciate being addressed in a condescending way.

A child of eight who is baptised into the Church is baptised into the Catholic Church. A child of eight who is baptised as a Baptist can still be saved even if she never becomes a member of the Catholic Church.

That is my point. Although the Church is necessary for everyone’s salvation, not everyone needs to be an actual member of the Church to be saved. Those who believe that only Catholics can be saved have fallen for the heresy of Feeneyism.
 
AnneElliot said:
Such ‘invincibly ignorant’ persons would be brought to the Truth (and the Church), by miraculous means if necessary in order to procure their salvation. It has happened in the past (Saints have raised the dead solely in order to baptize them, Saints have bilocated to preach the Gospel to natives, etc.).
Click to expand...
Would you please post some examples of this? I’ve never heard of this happening. :confused:
 
Fr. Peter Stravinskas on Fr. Feeney and his followers:

For those who don’t know, Fr. Feeney was a brilliant and popular chaplain at Harvard University. Unfortunately, he began to preach and teach an extreme form of extra ecclesiam which the then Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, found problematic. When asked either to modify his position or to be silent, Fr. Feeney responded by accusing the Archbishop himself of heresy, leading to an investigation of Feeney’s work by the Holy See, with the attendant decision by the Jesuit Order to silence him. When he refused to accept this decision, he was dismissed from the Society of Jesus and eventually excommunicated, taking with him many men and women whom he formed into a community of religious and laity — all committed to his rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam.

Though later reconciled to the Church himself, Fr. Feeney has many followers today who continue to stand by his original position. Their rhetoric is often angry, decrying what is, in their view, the corruption of authentic Catholicism. For them, there is no salvation for anyone outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church; to deny this is to deny a consistent teaching of the Church. Their claim is a troubling one: If indeed, the Church at one time taught as infallible dogma a notion it now rejects, then the Catholic assertion of ecclesial infallibility is a myth, disproved by history. This is the question I will address. Did the Church reverse a doctrine it once proclaimed as truth? I should note at the outset, my indebtedness to Jesuit Father Francis A. Sullivan, for his magisterial study on this topic in Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (Paulist Press, 1992).

Excerpted from Can Outsiders be Insiders
 
LittleSoldier said:
Would you please post some examples of this? I’ve never heard of this happening. :confused:
Click to expand...
Anne’s statement is self-contradictory. That is, if those who are invincibly ignorant are somehow enlightened, then there is no cause for saying they are invincibly ignorant.

The statement amounts to a denial of what the Church teaches about invincible ignorance and salvation. As such, it smacks of Feeneyism.
 
LittleSoldier said:
Would you please post some examples of this? I’ve never heard of this happening. :confused:
Click to expand...
How many do you want?

+Ven. Mary of Agreda bilocated no less than 500 times to convert the Native Americans. She told them missionaries would come to baptize them, and when the Franciscan priests got there, they found the Indians already knowledgeable in the Faith who said a “lady in blue” appeared to them and taught it to them so they were baptized by the missionaries, as she had promised. (Mysteries, Marvels, Miracles in the Lives of the Saints by Joan Carroll Cruz, et. al.)

+St. Colette and St. Joan of Arc raised dead infants to life so that they might receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
(Saints Who Raised the Dead by Fr. Albert Hebert)

+St. Patrick raised 2 dead pagan women back to life who then renounced their idols and proclaimed that Christ was the true God, and they and many of the witnesses were baptized.
(Saints Who Raised the Dead by Fr. Albert Hebert)

I recommend both of the above books, as they include many more examples. Neither books were written for such a purpose, but they do demonstrate the occasion of such miracles occurring in the lives of the Saints. Most of these miracles were used in the beatification/canonization process for these Saints (and the many others) who worked the miracles recorded in both books. Those books are not the only places the miracles are recorded, but they are like a compendium of sorts, and good to have for one’s own inspiration and edification.
 
Hang on a minute there, Anne - that really does not make any sense! 😉
AnneElliot said:
I am not a “Feeneyite”.

Though, for whatever it’s worth, Fr. Feeney died reconciled to the Church without having to recant his position on the Dogma and several of his followers and their religious communities are in good standing with the Church and listed on the website for the Diocese of Worcester. 🤷

How Could Fr. Feeney be reconciled to the Catholic Church without renouncing his error - and, doing whatever he could to make sure that this error was corrected. Those who followed Feeneyitism fell into heresy and unless they repent for this heresy, they are still outside the Church. You really can not have it both ways - you either renouce error and become reunited to the Catholic Church or you continue in your error, rejecting the authority of the Pope to point our error and ban this heresy from being taught. If those who followed Fr. Feeney into the grave sin of heresy, failed to renounce their old ways - they can not be listed a living member in the Body of Christ on earth.

Now, if you have documentation that the Church lifted the ban of excommunication on Fr. Feeney although he continued in his heretical position, please produce it.

God bless

I did not ‘chop quote’ anything either. It’d be rather hard to copy and paste the entire encyclical and trust that people would read it.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think it as complex as we are finding it. Perhaps it would be less conflicting if we keep in mind a person must have the knowledge an act is a sin and choose to perform that sin before it can be a sin. A Catholic has been given or offered the salvation of Christ through His Church and in His sacraments (hence the knowledge of what is salvation or sin) and choosing to separate is rejecting that salvation or commiting that sin.

A non-Catholic in most cases does not have the fullness and complete Truth of this teaching to reject it with certain knowledge. Therefore, he or she does not reject salvation if living devoutly to Christ in that way they have been led to believe as a Christian. It is anticipated that their devotion would remain the same had they known the full and correct teachings and would desire to enter the Body of Christ, His Church. Once they do have the knowledge of the fullness of the teachings of Christ through His Church, should they reject communion with her, they reject salvation accordingly. It may sound simplistic but hey, does any man know the mind of God or understand the depth of His Justice and Mercy?
 
twb1621 said:
… A Catholic has been given or offered the salvation of Christ through His Church and in His sacraments (hence the knowledge of what is salvation or sin) and choosing to separate is rejecting that salvation or committing that sin.
Click to expand...
Membership of the CC (or for that matter any religion) does not guarantee the said knowledge. I find that the majority in any religion, are either ignorant or misinformed of the teachings of their own religion. This includes well educated members too.
A non-Catholic in most cases does not have the fullness and complete Truth of this teaching to reject it with certain knowledge. Therefore, he or she does not reject salvation if living devoutly to Christ in that way they have been led to believe as a Christian. It is anticipated that their devotion would remain the same had they known the full and correct teachings and would desire to enter the Body of Christ, His Church. Once they do have the knowledge of the fullness of the teachings of Christ through His Church, should they reject communion with her, they reject salvation accordingly. It may sound simplistic but hey, does any man know the mind of God or understand the depth of His Justice and Mercy?
Click to expand...
Being saved remains a mystery. Our Lord Himself said that unless His Father willed so, no one can come to Him. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

But He also said no one can go to the Father except through Him: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

So it is quite clear that, God draws people to Jesus for His own reasons which probably are beyond our comprehension and we have no business to attribute any. Baptism, is an extraordinary source of grace that draws people to Jesus; however they need to prove worthy of it and so must anyone who is drawn to Jesus. Recall the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt 22:1-14) and the fate of the one without wedding clothes. This parable is most relevant to this debate. The THREE CLEAR MESSAGES are:
  1. There is no place for the unworthy in God’s Kingdom
  2. There is NO ROOM for complacency in God’s Kingdom
  3. There is no pre-condition or bar to enter God’s kingdom
Therefore IT IS NOBODY’S RIGHT TO SPECULATE WHO IS SAVED AND WHO IS DAMNED.

Our only concern should be “How to live a life worthy of our calling and through our lives, attract others to Jesus by being shining examples”
 
tqualey said:
Hang on a minute there, Anne - that really does not make any sense! 😉
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense… Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy. Fr. Feeney was summoned to Rome and did not go. You can read the decree of excommunication yourself.

Since he was not excommunicated for heresy, there was no need to recant in order to reconcile with the Church. Thus, the existence of several religious orders made up of his followers can be in union with their local bishop and listed on the Diocesan website, because they are not in heresy either.
 
Pitcharan said:
  1. There is no pre-condition or bar to enter God’s kingdom
Click to expand...
John 3:5 “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneElliot
I am not a “Feeneyite”.

Though, for whatever it’s worth, Fr. Feeney died reconciled to the Church without having to recant his position on the Dogma and several of his followers and their religious communities are in good standing with the Church and listed on the website for the Diocese of Worcester.
tqualey said:
Hang on a minute there, Anne - that really does not make any sense! ;)How Could Fr. Feeney be reconciled to the Catholic Church without renouncing his error - and, doing whatever he could to make sure that this error was corrected. Those who followed Feeneyitism fell into heresy and unless they repent for this heresy, they are still outside the Church. You really can not have it both ways - you either renouce error and become reunited to the Catholic Church or you continue in your error, rejecting the authority of the Pope to point our error and ban this heresy from being taught. If those who followed Fr. Feeney into the grave sin of heresy, failed to renounce their old ways - they can not be listed a living member in the Body of Christ on earth.

Now, if you have documentation that the Church lifted the ban of excommunication on Fr. Feeney although he continued in his heretical position, please produce it.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it ironic that those who claim a strict interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” are themselves, outside the Church? And if the parable of the talents is any indication of how we will be judged then what judgement should those who place themselves outside the Church by their strict interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” expect?

In 1974 some church authorities, out of sorrow for him, let an aging and terminally ill Leonard Feeney be reconciled to the Church. As part of the unfortunate looseness we witnessed of that time, they did not demand that he recant. So he did not. Despite the charity he received from the church Leonard Feeney voluntarily remained outside the church. He died in 1978 and on his tombstone are the words “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. He was defient to the end. Somehow, I can’t imagine that Leonard Feeney, where ever he is now, can be pleased with his legacy.
 
Hi, Anne,

What are we splitting hairs for? I am not arguing with him being exccommunicated for disobedience - but… IN ADDITION TO his disobedience, he was also guilty of a heresy that was condemned (and named after him!).

It would seem like you are saying, he was forgiven for his disobedience in not going to Rome as ordered - and was able to maintain his heretical belieft at the same time! This is what makes no sense. And, the significance of this is that anyone who holds to the heresy of Feeneyism is also condemned and separated from the Church. Do you disagree with this?

God bless
AnneElliot said:
It makes perfect sense… Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy. Fr. Feeney was summoned to Rome and did not go. You can read the decree of excommunication yourself.

Since he was not excommunicated for heresy, there was no need to recant in order to reconcile with the Church. Thus, the existence of several religious orders made up of his followers can be in union with their local bishop and listed on the Diocesan website, because they are not in heresy either.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Tom,

Perhaps you should write the Bishop of the Diocese of Worcester, MA and ask him why the Diocese supports a (supposed) heretical religious order AND lists it on the Diocesan website. 🤷

Anyway, I am not here to defend Fr. Feeney, I do not hold all of Fr. Feeney’s views. I stick with the Church and abide by her official teachings (as found in Ecumenical Councils, Papal documents, etc.). There is only one Church which has taught and continues to teach the same Truth.

Inkaneer,

As I have said repeatedly, “No, I am not a Feeneyite”. Feeney separated justification and Baptism and I don’t think this is possible after the promulgation of the Gospel.

I don’t condemn anyone to Hell. Those who are open will be led by Divine Providence to the Catholic Church, even if it should require a miracle. God does not disappoint. Anyone can be saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top