No Salvation Outside The Church?

[tqualey]

Anne,

If you are going to try and respond to Inkaneer’s post, you must do so in a reasonable manner - to say there is no proof that an event (a quick water Baptism) was not done is poor argumentation. There is no proof that anything else did not happen, either - this does not mean just because it suits our argument, we can present it so as to address the issue.

We are really back to my question (do I detect evasion here…) that Feeney said all infants who do not have a water Baptism are condemned to Hell (your quotes from previous Councils do not quite address the issue like Feeney did - and - by the way - his was condemned…)

You have not denied the letter from the Holy Office condeming Feeney’s teachings - just apparently ignored it! Now, it is about at this time that a boat load of ‘red herrings’ are released on the thread - but, I am asking you to keep your nets closed and just answer the question about if you agree with Feeney that all dead babies who have not received a water Baptism are in hell. This is not a trick question - just one focused on trying to understand just where you stand on this issue. Really. Either you agree with Feeney and consequently disagree with the Holy Office or you agree with the Holy Office’s condemnation of Feeney’s interpretation. You can’t have it both ways: waving both the Feeney flag and the Vatican’s flag at the same time for the same reason!

And, at this time I am really not interested in what any Diocese may or may not teach on this particular topic - just your view. Thanks.

God bless

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.”

 

[itinerant1]

A simple example of how Feeneyites typically distort “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”:

The Saint Benedict Center, NH, in an article titled Outside the Church there is no Salvation cites statements from various popes regarding the Church and salvation. We can take just one quote as representative of how such statements are often taken out of context by the Center:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

The article in question, in regard to Boniface VIII, only cites this one, final sentence from the Unam Sanctam. If the foregoing citation is taken at “face value” and out of its historical context, one may falsely conclude that all non-Catholics are summarily doomed.

The typical Feeneyite defense, that they are merely defending Church doctrine, is disingenuous and sophistic. Non-Feeneyite interpretations of EENS are often treated by Feeneyites as *Indifferentism, *when in fact they may be strongly opposed to the heretical view of Indifferentism.

While the statement made by Pope Boniface certainly represents the teaching of the Church, it can only be correctly understood in the historical context of the dispute with Philip the Fair, King of France. Boniface outlines the proper spheres of authority of the Church and the secular powers in the context of medieval society; (Unam Sanctam), and in religious matters, all must submit to the Roman Pontiff. That is true.

The quoted statement, though, cannot be taken to imply that those who have never heard of the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, and are therefore not visibly or explicitly “subject to the Roman Pontiff”, cannot be saved.

 

[AnneElliot]

Tom,

I agree with the Church that those who depart this life in Original Sin only go to hell, but not to be punished the same as those who die in mortal sin. Traditionally, the Church has called this Limbo (limbus infantum). Those in Heaven are free from all stain of sin, including Original Sin.

 

[tqualey]

JM3,

If you re-read Lumen Gentium you will see NO endorsement, support or even a kind nod for Feeney and his distorted view of Baptism. This man taught heresy, this man’s teachings were condemned by the Holy Office, and this man apparently continues to lead others astray…some on this thread!

Since you are done with the thread…



God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Thank you, Anne,

God bless

Tom,

I agree with the Church that those who depart this life in Original Sin only go to hell, but not to be punished the same as those who die in mortal sin. Traditionally, the Church has called this Limbo (limbus infantum). Those in Heaven are free from all stain of sin, including Original Sin.

 

[itinerant1]

Tom,

I agree with the Church that those who depart this life in Original Sin only go to hell, but not to be punished the same as those who die in mortal sin. Traditionally, the Church has called this Limbo (limbus infantum). Those in Heaven are free from all stain of sin, including Original Sin.

Your statement is ambiguous. Do you think “that who depart this life in Original Sin only” suffer any manner of punishment or loss? This issue, you did not address.

 

[AnneElliot]

Your statement is ambiguous. Do you think “that who depart this life in Original Sin only” suffer any manner of punishment or loss? This issue, you did not address.

I did address it… those who depart this life in Original Sin only are in hell, but not tormented. They are excluded from the Beatific Vision because of Original Sin, but they are not punished. Limbo is a state of neutral/natural happiness.

 

[itinerant1]

I did address it… those who depart this life in Original Sin only are in hell, but not tormented. They are excluded from the Beatific Vision because of Original Sin, but they are not punished. Limbo is a state of neutral/natural happiness.

Good enough!

That answers my question, which arose due to the ambiguity in your phrase not to be punished the same. Nota bene: the intended meaning of a statement can seem perfectly clear to the one who writes it, but not necessarily so to everyone who reads it.

 

[itinerant1]

Fr. Leonard Feeney’s heresy:

I have noticed in this thread the tendency to defend Fr. Feeney’s false interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” on the grounds that he was not formally excommunicated for heresy, but for disobedience. The Feeneyites at the St. Benedict Center, N.H., also attempt to get some mileage from that dubious argument. The fact is that Fr. Feeney was ordered to stop teaching his errant views. An examination of his unduly narrow interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” clearly shows he was involved in heresy.

Karl Keating says, "Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.

“Feeney founded and headed the Saint Benedict Center, which was located across the street from Harvard University. He organized a religious association known as the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. After his death his followers split into no fewer than eight factions, the chief of which, still using the name Saint Benedict Center, is located in Richmond, New Hampshire, just north of the Massachusetts border.”

I will let it suffice here to say that the Feeneyite’s “spin” on the conflict between the Vatican and Fr. Feeney makes little sense in itself.

In addition, I noticed that some defenders of Fr. Feeney, while maintaining an overly narrow interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, do not hold to as rigorist an interpretation of the maxim as did Fr. Feeney. Nonetheless, these defenders are promoting theological errors. I think of these misguided defenders of Fr. Feeney as neo-Feeneyites.

Was Father Feeney anti-Semitic?

I raised this question in post # 807, but got no response. The charge of anti-Semitism is one that is often hurled about recklessly and maliciously. The Jewish ADL is notorious for falsely branding people as anti-Semitic, as it serves as an instrument of thought control. Catholics such as Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran have been maliciously defamed as anti-Semitic because, for one reason, they oppose the oppressive policies of the Israeli government (as I myself do).

Be that as it may, one can hardly read through issues of The Point without noticing that Fr. Feeney and his followers had a deeply negative view of the Jews: “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.
Father Feeney – The Point

There is little doubt in my mind that Fr. Feeney and his followers were genuinely anti-Semitic, infected with that disease of the spirit that swept across Europe in the early 20th century. Karl Keating says,

"Leonard Feeney may be remembered today for insisting that “there is no salvation outside the Church” (a true doctrine, by the way, if properly interpreted), but it seems that in the 1950s he and his Slaves were preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession. They blamed Jews for all sorts of ills: religious, political, social, and cultural. (They do not seem to have blamed them for the Johnstown Flood.)

"So far as I can tell, nowhere in “The Point” is there an explicit statement that its writers hate Jews or wish them ill or think them mentally or biologically “inferior.” But does it take such attitudes to constitute anti-Semitism?

“I don’t think so. Webster’s defines anti-Semitism as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.” Certainly “The Point” is packed with hostility–and unrelenting hostility at that. (I invite you to read the articles for yourself.)”

Read Karl Keating’s letter FR. FEENEY AND THE JEWS

 

[itinerant1]

JM3,

If you re-read Lumen Gentium you will see NO endorsement, support or even a kind nod for Feeney and his distorted view of Baptism. This man taught heresy, this man’s teachings were condemned by the Holy Office, and this man apparently continues to lead others astray…some on this thread!

Since you are done with the thread…



God bless

It now appears to be two down. Smokin’ !! :yyeess:

 

[AnneElliot]

itinerant,

1. Are you trying to say/imply that there is salvation outside the Church?
2. When you speak of baptism of desire, what do you mean (how would you define it)?
   2.1 Do you mean that faith alone (implicit/explicit) is sufficient to obtain grace (i.e., the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism) in some/any circumstance(s)?
   2.2 What (if anything) is required of the recipient?
   2.3 Is this a frequent occurrence?

 

[inkaneer]

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’:

Oh come on Anne, wake up and smell the coffee will you? St. Emerenfiana was not baptized with water. She was martyred as a catechumen and received the Baptism of Blood. The early church fathers are unanamous in recognizing the Baptism of Blood as a valid Baptism. Something which apparently you and your fellow Feeneyites are not in communion with the rest of the church. St.Emerenfina is not the only example either. Given the early church penchant of lenghty instruction in the faith before Baptism there are probably many more.

But the fact remains Anne that you, along with the rest of the Church, really don’t know if she received water Baptism. Yet that did not stop the Church from declaring her a saint. Feeney would say she was condemned. Cyril of Jerusalem, however, stated:

"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, [A.D. 350]).

And note what Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

“[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]:22).

That is quite different from what you and Feeney say.

 

[inkaneer]

itinerant,

1. Are you trying to say/imply that there is salvation outside the Church?
2. When you speak of baptism of desire, what do you mean (how would you define it)?
   2.1 Do you mean that faith alone (implicit/explicit) is sufficient to obtain grace (i.e., the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism) in some/any circumstance(s)?
   2.2 What (if anything) is required of the recipient?
   2.3 Is this a frequent occurrence?

Anne, your questions are pointless, especially the last one. Even if there was only one, just one single solitary example of Baptism of desire, that would be sufficient to prove both you and Feeney wrong. Wake up, Anne, You are spreading poison in the form of Feeneyism and like Feeney, you are not in communion with the church;s teaching

 

[AnneElliot]

inkaneer,

“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)

You don’t know that St. Emerentiana was NOT baptized, do you? The (early) accounts do not say for a fact that she was not baptized, in fact, these accounts say NOTHING other than she was a catechumen. St. Emerentiana was visiting the tomb of her sister, St. Agnes… do you really think she would’ve risked such a public statement of faith if she was not absolutely prepared for death? I have already demonstrated that catechumens, especially during the persecutions, were baptized prior to completing their instruction in the Faith. The early Christians were just as aware of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
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)

Martyr of Rome, in some traditions the foster sister of St. Agnes, stoned to death when discovered praying at Agnes’ grave. Emerentiana was possibly martyred elsewhere. Her cult was confined to local calendars in 1969.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=3109

Foster-sister of Saint Agnes of Rome. Catechumen. While on her way to pray at Saint Agnes’s grave a few days after her sister’s martyrdom, she was confronted by an angry mob of pagans. Emerentiana professed her Christianity and her relationship to Agnes. Martyr.

saints.sqpn.com/saint-emerentiana/

Virgin and martyr, d. at Rome in the third century. The old Itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs, after giving the place of burial on the Via Nomentana of St. Agnes, speak of St. Emerentiana. Over the grave of St. Emerentiana a church was built which, according to the Itineraries, was near the church erected over the place of burial of St. Agnes, and somewhat farther from the city wall. In reality Emerentiana was interred in the coemeterium majus located in this vicinity not far from the coemeterium Agnetis. Armellini believed that he had found the original burial chamber of St. Emerentiana in the former coemeterium. According to the legend of St. Agnes Emerentiana was her foster-sister. Some days after the burial of St. Agnes Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on 23 January. In the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” she is mentioned under 16 September, with the statement: In coemeterio maiore. She is represented with stones in her lap, also with a palm or lily.

newadvent.org/cathen/05401b.htm

Emerentiana VM (RM)
(also known as Emerentia)
Died 304 (?). According to the Roman Martyrology, Saint Emerentiana was the foster sister of Saint Agnes. While she was still a catechumen, Emerentiana was discovered by a pagan mob praying at the tomb of her recently martyred sister, and was stoned to death. There was, indeed, a real Roman martyr named Emerentiana, whose cultus is very ancient, as testified by its inclusion in the martyrologies of Jerome, Bede, and others, but not even the date of her death is known. She may have suffered with Saints Victor, Felix, and Alexander. It is claimed by Alban Butler that her relics were recovered with those of her sister in Christ near the Church of Saint Agnes on the Via Nomentana when it was being restored during the reign of Pope Paul V. Farmer reports that they were found nearby. Her connection with Saint Agnes ensured her popularity (Attwater2, Benedictines, Coulson, Encyclopedia, Farmer, Husenbeth). Saint Emerentiana is pictured as a young maiden with a stone or being stoned by a mob at Saint Agnes’s tomb (Roeder). She is invoked against colic and stomach ache (Roeder).

saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0123.shtml

… all these accounts, and aside from mention that she was a catechumen, NOTHING about her not being baptized. None of my missals say anything as regards baptism for her Feast Day either.

Unless you have demonstrative evidence that the Church has canonized a person who was not baptized, this argument is weak. Why should I believe that the Church celebrates an unbaptized Saint when this is clearly contrary to the dogmatic teaching on the necessity of baptism… and when accounts of the Saint’s life say nothing about her not being baptized, only that she was a catechumen. It’s a large leap to assume that in the time of Christian persecution that baptism would would have been deferred, or that a catechumen would put her life in danger without being prepared to face death?

 

[AnneElliot]

Anne, your questions are pointless, especially the last one. Even if there was only one, just one single solitary example of Baptism of desire, that would be sufficient to prove both you and Feeney wrong.

Is there a single solitary example of baptism of desire?

The questions are not pointless. If the Church has declared a person a Saint who received ‘baptism of desire’, or I can find the phrase in any Papal or Conciliar document, I would concede to the teaching of the Church. As it stands, there is no Saint and there are no Papal or Conciliar documents that mention the phrase “baptism of desire”.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant,

1. Are you trying to say/imply that there is salvation outside the Church?
2. When you speak of baptism of desire, what do you mean (how would you define it)?
   2.1 Do you mean that faith alone (implicit/explicit) is sufficient to obtain grace (i.e., the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism) in some/any circumstance(s)?
   2.2 What (if anything) is required of the recipient?
   2.3 Is this a frequent occurrence?

In this thread, I provided numerous quotes and links that explain what the Church teaches in regard to “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. But after all that, why are asking whether I “imply that there is salvation outside the Church”?? :whacky:

I also provided quotes that explain the baptism of desire. In fact, you posted responses to a some of my quotes.

The only remedy I can suggest for your current state of amnesia, is that you review the posts in this thread. And just perhaps it will ocurr to you that this thread did not begin yesterday. :doh2:

If there is anything in a previous post that you are unlcear about, bring that up, citing the post number, as well.

:coffeeread:

 

[itinerant1]

Is there a single solitary example of baptism of desire?

The questions are not pointless. If the Church has declared a person a Saint who received ‘baptism of desire’, or I can find the phrase in any Papal or Conciliar document, I would concede to the teaching of the Church. As it stands, there is no Saint and there are no Papal or Conciliar documents that mention the phrase “baptism of desire”.

Even though canonized Saints have, from the earliest times, taught the validity of the baptism of desire, you refuse to accept the teaching unless a canonized Saint received the baptism of desire. The logic in that escapes me.

And from the beginning of Catholic tradition, Church Fathers considered martyrdom (blood baptism) a substitute for the rite of sacramental baptism. It would be an affront to such a martyr for us to believe he would be in need of our prayers.

 

[itinerant1]

**WHAT IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE?
**Baptism of desire is the implicit desire for baptism of water by a person who makes an act of perfect love of God, based on faith and with a sincere sorrow for one’s sins. Such was the case in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter encountered pagans who, moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the greatness of God. “Peter himself then said, ‘Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these people, now they have received the Holy Spirit…?’” (Acts 10:46-47).

IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE A SACRAMENT?
Baptism of desire is not a sacrament; it does not imprint the baptismal character or enable a person to receive the other sacraments. Nevertheless, it does confer sanctifying grace.

(Fr. John A. Hardon)

 

[clmowry]

Is there a single solitary example of baptism of desire?

The questions are not pointless. If the Church has declared a person a Saint who received ‘baptism of desire’, or I can find the phrase in any Papal or Conciliar document, I would concede to the teaching of the Church. As it stands, there is no Saint and there are no Papal or Conciliar documents that mention the phrase “baptism of desire”.

What of all the Old Testament Saints?

Chuck

 

[itinerant1]

inkaneer,

“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)

You don’t know that St. Emerentiana was NOT baptized, do you? The (early) accounts do not say for a fact that she was not baptized, in fact, these accounts say NOTHING other than she was a catechumen. St. Emerentiana was visiting the tomb of her sister, St. Agnes… do you really think she would’ve risked such a public statement of faith if she was not absolutely prepared for death? I have already demonstrated that catechumens, especially during the persecutions, were baptized prior to completing their instruction in the Faith. The early Christians were just as aware of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
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)

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=3109

saints.sqpn.com/saint-emerentiana/

newadvent.org/cathen/05401b.htm

saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0123.shtml

… all these accounts, and aside from mention that she was a catechumen, NOTHING about her not being baptized. None of my missals say anything as regards baptism for her Feast Day either.

Unless you have demonstrative evidence that the Church has canonized a person who was not baptized, this argument is weak. Why should I believe that the Church celebrates an unbaptized Saint when this is clearly contrary to the dogmatic teaching on the necessity of baptism… and when accounts of the Saint’s life say nothing about her not being baptized, only that she was a catechumen. It’s a large leap to assume that in the time of Christian persecution that baptism would would have been deferred, or that a catechumen would put her life in danger without being prepared to face death?

Your point is moot. Catechumens are not considered members of the Church because they have yet to be baptized.