No Salvation Outside The Church?

[AnneElliot]

Fr. Feeney was, nonetheless heretical, in his intepretation of “no salvation outside the Church.” Nobody denies that fact except un-repentant Feeneyites.

Is Father Zuhlsdorf a “Feeneyite”?
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/some-thoughts-about-the-sspx-rome-and-unity/

Is Peter Vere, JCL a “Feeneyite”?
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

Contact the Diocese of Worcester.
Contact the communities I linked.

Are you accusing the Bishop of Worcester of encouraging “heresy” in his diocese? AND the vocations office of the Diocese (they link to these communities) as well?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnneElliot,

You present a most interesting post. You claim that that the Bishop of Worcester supports Fr. Feeney - and, Feeney’s original view of “Outside the Chruch there is no salvation” - but this view was condemned by the Vatican. I have attempted to contact members of the Archdiocese…and, am awaiting an answer. My understanding is that Fr. Feeney’s teaching was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and Fr. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953.

Now, what I find in your post is really an unsubstiantiated claim - and here I am trying to find an answer. But, you know, this really sounds like a fool’s errand. Asking a Bishop if he is not only guilty of heresy but of spreading it throughout his jurisdiction… is surely a bold question, indeed. Of course, given the lack of clarity you have provided in most of your posts - I certainly do not know why you want to thrash about on this particular topic.

Once I have the answer I will be happy to share it with you and the list.

God bless

Is Father Zuhlsdorf a “Feeneyite”?
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/some-thoughts-about-the-sspx-rome-and-unity/

Is Peter Vere, JCL a “Feeneyite”?
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

Contact the Diocese of Worcester.
Contact the communities I linked.

Are you accusing the Bishop of Worcester of encouraging “heresy” in his diocese? AND the vocations office of the Diocese (they link to these communities) as well?

 

[JM3]

Interpolation:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.

Romans 2:14-15

 

[itinerant1]

Is Father Zuhlsdorf a “Feeneyite”?
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/some-thoughts-about-the-sspx-rome-and-unity/

Is Peter Vere, JCL a “Feeneyite”?
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

Contact the Diocese of Worcester.
Contact the communities I linked.

Are you accusing the Bishop of Worcester of encouraging “heresy” in his diocese? AND the vocations office of the Diocese (they link to these communities) as well?

Your post is irrelevant to the fact Fr. Feeney once held to an heretical interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church.” There is no point in your continued defense of Fenneyism, except that it involves defending your own errant Feeneyite views.

 

[itinerant1]

http://blog.allanellenberger.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-duck.jpg

Was Donald Duck a Feeneyite? No.

I guess for some folks that proves certain things about Fr. Feeney, though I have no idea what that would be.

 

[AnneElliot]

Your post is irrelevant to the fact Fr. Feeney once held to an heretical interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church.” There is no point in your continued defense of Fenneyism, except that it involves defending your own errant Feeneyite views.

I am not a Feeneyite.

Fr. Feeney was never required to recant and even has engraved Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus on his gravestone, so I’m not sure why you typed “Fr. Feeney once held to a heretical interpretation” of the Dogma. If he was reconciled to the Church without having to recant, how can his understanding have been heretical? And how can communities of his followers be regularized in their respective Diocese without having to recant, and still be teaching the same understanding of EENS as Fr. Feeney?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnneElliot,

I am not sure why it is you want to dance around this issue. The view that Fr. Feeney held was condemned by the Church - that means what he taught is/was contrary to the true doctrine that faithful Catholics must believe. His ultimate reconciliation with the Church is immaterial at this time - (but, you even seem to discount this, too).

The issue with Feeney was not that he had anything particular engraved on his gravestone - or - even on his body. The issue is what was it that got his teaching to be CONDEMNED by the church. This teaching is a heresy. Those who abide by Feeney’s teaching are outside of the Church (which is quite ironic considering what they claim is something they have voided for themselves! )

You have refused to really explain what YOU MEAN by “Extra Ecclasiam Nulla Sulus” - we know you claim NOT to be a Fenneyite - so, explaining your numerous (but confusing and conflicted) posts in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church would certainly stop this ongoing denial you are presenting with one hand, yet proclaiming with the other.

Of course, there is another possibility… and that is we have a different spelling for this word! D.E.K.I.A.L. has a unique meaning … “Don’t Even Know I Am Lying” is something to consider.

God bless

I am not a Feeneyite.

Fr. Feeney was never required to recant and even has engraved Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus on his gravestone, so I’m not sure why you typed “Fr. Feeney once held to a heretical interpretation” of the Dogma. If he was reconciled to the Church without having to recant, how can his understanding have been heretical? And how can communities of his followers be regularized in their respective Diocese without having to recant, and still be teaching the same understanding of EENS as Fr. Feeney?

 

[AnneElliot]

I am not a Feeneyite because Fr. Feeney theorized in his book, “Bread of Life” that a man could be justified, but if he were not baptized, that justified person could not be saved (cf. p 121). Without the character from the sacrament of Baptism, where could sanctifying grace adhere in the soul in the first place? Thus, I disagree that a man could even be justified, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without having received the sacrament of Baptism. The Council of Trent defined the instrumental cause of justification as the sacrament of Baptism (cf. Trent, sixth session, Justification, ch. 7).

God would simply provide a way for that person to receive the Sacrament, even if it required miraculous means.

 

[itinerant1]

God would simply provide a way for that person to receive the Sacrament, even if it required miraculous means.

While that may sometimes be the case, to assert it as a rule of thumb, as you have, is unrealistic and sounds rather Feeneyish of you.

 

[itinerant1]

I am not a Feeneyite.

Fr. Feeney was never required to recant and even has engraved Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus on his gravestone, so I’m not sure why you typed “Fr. Feeney once held to a heretical interpretation” of the Dogma. If he was reconciled to the Church without having to recant, how can his understanding have been heretical? And how can communities of his followers be regularized in their respective Diocese without having to recant, and still be teaching the same understanding of EENS as Fr. Feeney?

Your interpretation of the matter remains in question. For example, Fr. Ray Ryland would certainly disagree with you.

"Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

"That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

“In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.”

"Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

“Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.”

 

[AnneElliot]

While that may sometimes be the case, to assert it as a rule of thumb, as you have, is unrealistic and sounds rather Feeneyish of you.

Miracles are not unrealistic. They happen every day. Multiple times a day, and at multiple locations. The Most Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Bread and wine are changed into the glorified flesh of the Savior. This is a miracle. It happens every day, multiple times a day… all over the world. It is not “unrealistic” to assert the possibility of the miraculous.

Baptism is necessary for salvation (as the Church teaches), and since God does not withhold the grace(s) necessary for salvation from anyone (as the Church also teaches) we must conclude that all persons are given the opportunity to receive the grace they need to be saved and this includes Baptism.

"Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary.

This is some sort of doublespeak that ends up being complete rubbish. The nature of dogma in defining Catholic teaching is not so that it has to be interpreted to say that it doesn’t say what it really says. Dogmas are clear. They are truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches.

 

[JM3]

Your interpretation of the matter remains in question. For example, Fr. Ray Ryland would certainly disagree with you.

"Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

"That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

“In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.”

"Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

“Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.”

Interpolation #2:

“In the December 1948 issue of From the Housetops, an article appeared which clearly and unequivocally argued that there could be no salvation outside the Church. Although Father Feeney had signed none of these articles, it was clear that the (St. Benedict)Center and its leaders embraced the strict position that no one could be saved who was not a full member of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“On August 8, 1949, the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith) issued a Protocol condemning the viewpoint expressed in From the Housetops, vol. 3. (This volume included the December 1948 issue with the ‘no salvation’ article.)”

"The excommunication was applied automatically because of Father Feeney’s refusal to appear in Rome.

Both the Protocol of 1949 and the document of excommunication in 1953 make it quite clear that the sanctions imposed on Father Feeney and on St. Benedict Center are the result of a refusal to accept and obey the authority of the Church. There is no question that membership in the Church is essential for salvation. It is. This teaching was given by Christ. However,** the interpretation of this teaching is not in the hands of individual Catholics, even priests and theologians.**"

“In 1972, after a number of meetings, exchanges of letters, and negotiations, Rome lifted the excommunication of Father Feeney.”

Dissent From the Creed by Rev. Richard M. Hogan

 

[tqualey]

Awwwwwww, AnneElliot,

You almost had it! And, then you blow it with this post! Really… comparing the miracle of the Eucharist and the frequency in which it is celebrated through out the world - with the EXTRA-ordinary miracle you are requiring really misses the point in my opinion.

As I see it, your work as a Faithful Catholic is to reconcile the concepts that Baptism IS necessary for salvation - if this is possible in the life of the person. And, if it is not possible then God will judge that soul accordingly. To conclude, however, that if they are not Baptized through no fault of their own - then they would be condemned to Hell is not only wrong, but a heresy. Feeney appeared to have trouble with that as a concept… are you having trouble with it, too?

God bless

Miracles are not unrealistic. They happen every day. Multiple times a day, and at multiple locations. The Most Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Bread and wine are changed into the glorified flesh of the Savior. This is a miracle. It happens every day, multiple times a day… all over the world. It is not “unrealistic” to assert the possibility of the miraculous.

Baptism is necessary for salvation (as the Church teaches), and since God does not withhold the grace(s) necessary for salvation from anyone (as the Church also teaches) we must conclude that all persons are given the opportunity to receive the grace they need to be saved and this includes Baptism.

This is some sort of doublespeak that ends up being complete rubbish. The nature of dogma in defining Catholic teaching is not so that it has to be interpreted to say that it doesn’t say what it really says. Dogmas are clear. They are truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches.

 

[inkaneer]

.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy. There is no Church document condemning “Feeneyism” as heresy.

And what was Martin Luther excommunicated for? Was it sola scriptura or was it disobedience? Pope Leo’s bull, Exsurge Domine, which condemned the teachings of Luther set a sixty day time limit during which Luther was required to make an act of obedience to the Pope. Luther contemptuously responded by burning it. Luther was then excommunicated for his act of disobedience. The point is that in both cases the disobedience is imbedded in the heresy so that the excommunication for one includes the other. It bears mentioning that Feeney was guilty of other grave doctrinal errors relating to Baptism, Justification and Sanctifying Grace. So it wasn’t just extra ecclesiam, nulla salus that comprised “Feeneyism”

Feeney’s ‘return’ to the church was hollow. Since he was not required to recant the question remains, did he possess true contrition for his sins of disobedience? Without this, of course, his ‘return’ is null and void. I think his tombstone is indicative of his lack of contrition. That being the case his return would be hollow. Isn’t it ironic that the man who espoused extra ecclesiam, nulla salus would die outside the church?

 

[AnneElliot]

through no fault of their own

This begs the question… then whose fault is it?

 

[AnneElliot]

And what was Martin Luther excommunicated for? Was it sola scriptura or was it disobedience? Pope Leo’s bull, Exsurge Domine, which condemned the teachings of Luther set a sixty day time limit during which Luther was required to make an act of obedience to the Pope. Luther contemptuously responded by burning it. Luther was then excommunicated for his act of disobedience.

Did you forget the other Papal documents which specifically condemned Luther’s heresies (including the Council of Trent)?!

Comparing Luther and Fr. Feeney is a bit of a stretch, I think, unless you are going to argue that Vatican II was convened to correct the errors of “Feeneyism”.

The point is that in both cases the disobedience is imbedded in the heresy so that the excommunication for one includes the other. It bears mentioning that Feeney was guilty of other grave doctrinal errors relating to Baptism, Justification and Sanctifying Grace. So it wasn’t just extra ecclesiam, nulla salus that comprised “Feeneyism”

Okay… now we’re going somewhere… what are these errors regarding Baptism, justification, and sanctifying grace that Fr. Feeney was guilty of? Where are these errors condemned after Fr. Feeney’s promotion of them?

 

[tqualey]

Begs WHAT question? Why are you looking for a fault when such a condition is totally unnecessary?

We are not talking about a drunk driver who runs a STOP sign and crashes into another vehicle causing injury and death. ‘Fault’ here is no only pretty obvious, but a matter of civil and criminal law.

Would you believe that there are natives in distant lands who have never heard of Christ. Whose ‘fault’ is it that they have never heard of our Savior?

Would you believe that there are locals in our own country who have never heard of the Catholic Church being the True Church. Whose ‘fault’ is it that they have never heard of this?

Would you believe that there is a real difference between vincible and invincible ignorance?

As I see it, once you establish yourself in the ‘Fault Allocation’ business when it comes to “No Salvation Outside The Church”… you are on thin ice… hmmmmmmmm … better make that, VERY thin ice!

God bless

This begs the question… then whose fault is it?

 

[AnneElliot]

Tom,

I never insinuated that a person is always culpable for their ignorance (or anything else). You said, “through no fault of their own”. Well, if it’s not their fault, whose fault is it? Isn’t God in charge? Is He Provident and Omnipotent, or isn’t He?

God sent Ven. Mary of Agreda to catechize the Indians more than 500 times in her lifetime. Other Saints raised the dead in order to baptize them. Yet, you want to believe that some people slip through the cracks of Divine Providence and are not provided with every grace they need in order to be saved and so claim “through no fault of their own” they were unable to receive the graces they needed?

 

[tqualey]

Anne,

I think I have taken this as far as I can. It appears to me you are not waving the Feeney Flag - for which he was excommunicated… and that is really all I care about.

If you insist on chasing ‘fault’ and who gets what and what-have-you… be my guest! There is no doubt in my mind that God is Provident and Omnipotent - and His Ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:89). Of course, St. Paul preached all over Turkey and Asia Minor … and you know what … today…even as we speak… there are people in these areas that have not heard of Christ. That seems to be the reality of the situation.

God bless

Tom,

I never insinuated that a person is always culpable for their ignorance (or anything else). You said, “through no fault of their own”. Well, if it’s not their fault, whose fault is it? Isn’t God in charge? Is He Provident and Omnipotent, or isn’t He?

God sent Ven. Mary of Agreda to catechize the Indians more than 500 times in her lifetime. Other Saints raised the dead in order to baptize them. Yet, you want to believe that some people slip through the cracks of Divine Providence and are not provided with every grace they need in order to be saved and so claim “through no fault of their own” they were unable to receive the graces they needed?

 

[itinerant1]

Miracles are not unrealistic. They happen every day. Multiple times a day, and at multiple locations. The Most Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Bread and wine are changed into the glorified flesh of the Savior. This is a miracle. It happens every day, multiple times a day… all over the world. It is not “unrealistic” to assert the possibility of the miraculous.

What a blatant strawman argument!!

I would be embarrassed to have committed such an avoidable logical fallacy.
Fact: I never implied that miracles are unrealistic.
Fact: You have a problem with correctly interpreting things that have been clearly stated.

Go back and carefully re-read what I wrote and discover how you have profoundly misconstrued what I said. The mischaracterization on your part is so transparent I am compelled to surmise that it was intentional on your part.

Baptism is necessary for salvation (as the Church teaches), and since God does not withhold the grace(s) necessary for salvation from anyone (as the Church also teaches) we must conclude that all persons are given the opportunity to receive the grace they need to be saved and this includes Baptism.

Since you frequently nuance what the Church says, there is no telling how you interpret “all persons are given the opportunity to receive the grace they need to be saved”. I suspect, in view of your previous posts, that you interpret the foregoing text in a manner that is both unrealistic and contrary to what the Church teaches.

Your only defense for your misconstructions is to assert that Church dogma is clearly stated and means what it says. If that is your defense, it is no defense at all, since theological expressions take place in the context of history, and thus are subject to misconstruction by those who neglect the context. Guess who I have in mind as an example?

Church dogma is no different than biblical expression of dogma that require for their correct interpretation, an understanding of the context. Even the Church Fathers argued over the meaning of biblical texts.

This is some sort of doublespeak that ends up being complete rubbish. The nature of dogma in defining Catholic teaching is not so that it has to be interpreted to say that it doesn’t say what it really says. Dogmas are clear. They are truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches.

It is most telling that the statement appears as “double-speak” only to you. Think about that.

It is denounced as double-speak by yourself simply because you do not correctly understand what is being said. And your statement about “truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches” is a self-serving flourish, one which functions in the context to gloss over the fact that you have chosen to adhere to a personal and indiosyncratic interpretation of Church dogma.

Furthermore, since the priest’s statement does not express your cherished Feeneyish nuances, you are forced to denounce it as “double-speak”. Your sophistic responses are getting old and wearisome. :yawn: