Salvation for Catholics only

[a_cermak]

Religious truth has the same reality as every other kind of truth. In the name of tolerance, if I say that “For me, God is a pink bunny rabbit,” everyone nods their heads and says, “How nice.” But if I were to say that “for me, the Chrysler building is a pink bunny rabbit,” or “the sky is a pink bunny rabbit,” I would be taken in for an evaluation at the local psychiatric hospital - and rightly so.

The reason you find the general tolerance toward religion is because in the States religion is a Constitutionally protected opinion and most Americans have absorbed that perspective.

While I would add a little more than Constitutionally protected opinion, I suppose that’s a pretty good start to how I would define religion as well. So, in that context, if you told me God is a pink bunny rabbit, I would likely nod and say OK as well. I would not share your opinion, but I would tolerate it and try mightily not to consider you a crackpot because of your faith.

 

[bear06]

Here’s what the Church has said regarding Feeneyism:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

 

[GerardP]

And so we come, as these conversations all eventually must, to the real point. All Popes since Pius X are either malevolent liars or possessed by the devil. Which is it, I wonder? Was John Paul an agent of Satan, or merely a puppet under Satan’s control. So hard to tell.

Shall we go down the list of absurdities, bizarre behavior, dubious ideas, bad policies, allowances for corruption, scandalous actions and apocalyptic statements?

This is brings us to the great irony of the Catholic-only Catholics.

As opposed to what? Heretic-Catholics?

In denying the Vicar of Christ are they seperating themselves from the Church enough that their own “Catholics only” salvation theory excludes themselves?

Of course. I should have known the sloganeering would be next. Pointing out the weaknesses and public sins of the Popes is “denying the Vicar of Christ”

By that standard “accepting the Vicar of Christ” is only possible by denying the truth?

This is why the conservatives and the sedevacantists have the same overblown understanding of the papacy.

They either blind their eyes to the truth or they conclude that the Popes must be illegitimate.

 

[GerardP]

Here’s what the Church has said regarding Feeneyism:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

Actually “the Church” did no such thing. It was only the Cardinal’s opinion.

catholicism.org/miller-feeney.html

Father Feeney: A Fact Sheet

I. Letter of the Holy Office

On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored Father Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood). This letter was signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49. It was formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

 

[GerardP]

Actually the document actually did jack squat.

Not quite. It gave people the wrong impression of what the Church teaches. It watered down Catholicism just a little more and prepared the way for allowing abortion (they just go to Heaven anyway) and universal salvation. (God is too good to let anyone go to Hell)

It did somebody’s job very well.

Make it meaningless and non-magisterial but give the impression that it’s magisterial and means something other than Catholicism and it’s done quite a lot.

 

[Arnobius]

Actually “the Church” did no such thing. It was only the Cardinal’s opinion.

catholicism.org/miller-feeney.html

Father Feeney: A Fact Sheet

I. Letter of the Holy Office

On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored Father Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood). This letter was signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49. It was formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

No matter how you dress it up, citing the Website of the group who followed Feeney does not demonstrate anything more than their opinion, not what the Magisterium has decreed.

Like the SSPX and their legalistic arguments as to why Lefebvre and his four illicitly consecrated bishops were not excommunicated, these people seek to deny that the Church has the authority to discipline those they agree with.

The Holy Office said he was excommunicated. The Saint Benedict Center denies this. I recognize the Holy Office as representing the Magisterium, not the Saint Benedict Center.

 

[jmcrae]

Gerard;

Ideas around baptism of blood and baptism of desire have been around ever since the first persecutions of the Church, when catechumens (unbaptized persons) were dying for the faith in the Collesium, and the resulting plagues from all the unburied dead bodies were killing off other Catechumens, so while they didn’t die the martyr’s death, they certainly died while anticipating baptism, and before they had actually received it.

Maybe some people are taking the idea a bit far by applying it to people who outright deny the Faith (I sincerely doubt that Jack Chick, for example, is going to receive baptism of desire), but to say that there is no such thing as baptism of desire or baptism of blood is to go against the teaching of the Church from its earliest times.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Not quite. It gave people the wrong impression of what the Church teaches. It watered down Catholicism just a little more and prepared the way for allowing abortion (they just go to Heaven anyway) and universal salvation. (God is too good to let anyone go to Hell)

It did somebody’s job very well.

Make it meaningless and non-magisterial but give the impression that it’s magisterial and means something other than Catholicism and it’s done quite a lot.

Can’t argue with you there…

 

[bear06]

Actually “the Church” did no such thing. It was only the Cardinal’s opinion.

catholicism.org/miller-feeney.html

Father Feeney: A Fact Sheet

I. Letter of the Holy Office

On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored Father Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood). This letter was signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49. It was formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

It’s from a Sacred Congregation. It’s approved by the Holy Father and Bishop Cushing was ordered to publish it.

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

Also, just to point this out because it was confusing when I read it, the Slaves of Mary are the ones that said it to be defective. This statement did not come from the Church. And to declare it just the opinon of one bishop is ludicrous since it came from a Congregation and was approved by the Holy Father. There were even two signers (one being Ottaviani!). You might want to at least try and make the argument that it’s just the opinon of all of these.

 

[bear06]

BTW, this letter that supposedly is to be taken as no more than a letter from one bishop to another was actually cited in Lumen Gentium #16.

 

[coleraine]

That’s essentially my understanding of it, which is why it’s so important to evangelize. Catholic truth cannot change, even if current Church leaders downplay this truth.

I think the teaching can be summed up like this:
Our Lord instituted one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church (the Roman Catholic Church) to which all must belong to find salvation; for in finding His Church, one finds Christ Himself. The Church, after all, is the Body of Christ and has the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ and His Church cannot be separated. If one is ignorant of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own, God will not hold him accountable on this charge, for we are judged on what we know. However, that doesn’t mean that someone ignorant of the Church will automatically go to heaven. Rather, just like those inside the Church, he will have to render an account to God for all of his deeds. I venture to say it is impossible to keep from mortal sin without the aid of the Church. So, one in mortal sin without the Church has no access to confession, which is the ordinary means of the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, those outside the Church, if they are outside the Church due to innocent ignorance, are still in grave danger of hell because they do not have access to baptism and penance. Those outside the Church of their own free will are objectively in a state of mortal sin from their refusal to enter the Church, and therefore cannot attain heaven.

That’s my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong.

no no no!!! yes, it is true about the bulk of what you said, most certainly. but frankly…evangilism…well sucks.

 

[TNT]

I got mine from EWTN… you have another source to disprove mine?

Yep. The original in Latin.

Denzinger (latin)
Blessed Pius IX
Encyclique: Quanto conficiamur mœror
*aux évêques d’Italie **10 août 1863 *
(extraits)
*[The bishops of Italy, August 10, 1863.] *

2866 1677 Notum Nobis vobisque est, eos, qui invincibili circa sanctissimam nostram religionem ignorantia laborant, quique naturalem legem eiusque praecepta in omnium cordibus a Deo insculpta sedulo servantes ac Deo oboedire parati, honestam rectamque vitam agunt, posse, divinae lucis et gratiae operante virtute, aeternam consequi vitam, cum Deus, qui omnium mentes, animos, cogitationes habitusque plane intuetur, scrutatur et noscit, pro summa sua bonitate et clementia minime patiatur, quempiam aeternis puniri suppliciis, qui voluntariae culpae reatum non habeat.
Literal:
that is not guilty of intentional fault is punished by eternal torment.

Meaning:
One is not going to be Tormented for being innocent of voluntary sins, but the punishment of Original Sin (loss of Heaven) and the torment for any voluntary sins remains.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Yep. The original in Latin.

Denzinger (latin)
Blessed Pius IX
Encyclique: Quanto conficiamur mœror
*aux évêques d’Italie **10 août 1863 *
(extraits)
*[The bishops of Italy, August 10, 1863.] *

2866 1677 Notum Nobis vobisque est, eos, qui invincibili circa sanctissimam nostram religionem ignorantia laborant, quique naturalem legem eiusque praecepta in omnium cordibus a Deo insculpta sedulo servantes ac Deo oboedire parati, honestam rectamque vitam agunt, posse, divinae lucis et gratiae operante virtute, aeternam consequi vitam, cum Deus, qui omnium mentes, animos, cogitationes habitusque plane intuetur, scrutatur et noscit, pro summa sua bonitate et clementia minime patiatur, quempiam aeternis puniri suppliciis, qui voluntariae culpae reatum non habeat.
Literal:
that is not guilty of intentional fault is punished by eternal torment.

Meaning:
One is not going to be Tormented for being innocent of voluntary sins, but the punishment of Original Sin (loss of Heaven) and the torment for any voluntary sins remains.

Ok, so are you saying that one who doesn’t join the Church because of **invincible **Ignorance will still go to hell because of the original sin?

In other word **ALL **outside of the Church will end up in hell?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[TNT]

Bottom Line:
Does salvation outside the Body of Christ:

1. Add to the importance and the urgency of the Great Commision or reduce it?
2. Prepare the way for the indifferentism rampant in the entire hierarchy if the VAT II church or distant it from the plague of indifferentism?

Your answer is:

Place you favorite “Nuance” Here==>>.___________________________________

Start with:
Dear Jesus Christ:
Regarding that there verse,
“Unless a man be born of WATER and the Holy Ghost he CANNOT (NOT WILL NOT) enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
And again:
“He who believes & is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe shall be condemned.”

That means that the unbaptized and unbeliever can actually be saved, and WILL enter heaven, right?

Sincerely yours,
I. N. Different

 

[TNT]

Ok, so are you saying that one who doesn’t join the Church because of **invincible **Ignorance will still go to hell because of the original sin?

In other word **ALL **outside of the Church will end up in hell?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

See my Previous Post above your’s.
Actually GOD said it.
Leave me out of it. I’m on my way ta H__ as we speak .So, I’ll let ya know for sure if I’m permitted.

 

[Arnobius]

Yep. The original in Latin.

Denzinger (latin)
Blessed Pius IX
Encyclique: Quanto conficiamur mœror
*aux évêques d’Italie **10 août 1863 *
(extraits)
*[The bishops of Italy, August 10, 1863.] *

2866 1677 Notum Nobis vobisque est, eos, qui invincibili circa sanctissimam nostram religionem ignorantia laborant, quique naturalem legem eiusque praecepta in omnium cordibus a Deo insculpta sedulo servantes ac Deo oboedire parati, honestam rectamque vitam agunt, posse, divinae lucis et gratiae operante virtute, aeternam consequi vitam, cum Deus, qui omnium mentes, animos, cogitationes habitusque plane intuetur, scrutatur et noscit, pro summa sua bonitate et clementia minime patiatur, quempiam aeternis puniri suppliciis, qui voluntariae culpae reatum non habeat.
Literal:
that is not guilty of intentional fault is punished by eternal torment.

Meaning:
One is not going to be Tormented for being innocent of voluntary sins, but the punishment of Original Sin (loss of Heaven) and the torment for any voluntary sins remains.

OK…

And your credibility to translate it versus the English translation of Denzinger, officially rendered as:

1677 And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [see n. 1717]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” * cannot obtain eternal salvation.

I find your translation rather dubious to say the least

The stress on the authority of the Church and those obstinate toward it does not bode well for the SSPX and Sedevacantists.

Check your translation vs other translations, then give us your credentials

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
traditionalcatholic.net/index.html

 

[TNT]

OK…

And your credibility to translate it versus the English translation of Denzinger, officially rendered as:

1677 And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [see n. 1717]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” * cannot obtain eternal salvation.
I find your translation rather dubious to say the least

The stress on the authority of the Church and those obstinate toward it does not bode well for the SSPX and Sedevacantists.

Check your translation vs other translations, then give us your credentials

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
traditionalcatholic.net/index.html

I see no disagreement between yours and mine.
I was only translating the part I have highlighted in yours, not the whole paragraph.
Check for snot please.
But thanks anyway.

 

[Arnobius]

I see no disagreement between yours and mine.
I was only translating the part I have highlighted in yours, not the whole paragraph.
Check for snot please.
But thanks anyway.

Ludicrous, and the reading still does not justify your interpretation.

I think you forgot to read this clause “because of His great goodness and mercy,” that immediately preceded the part you colored. Under your interpretation, it means God because of his mercy will not send anyone to hell except for deliberate sins BUT He will for original sin anyway.

No, the context shows your interpretation is a perversion of what was said.

 

[TNT]

Ludicrous, and the reading still does not justify your interpretation.

I think you forgot to read this clause “because of His great goodness and mercy,” that immediately preceded the part you colored. Under your interpretation, it means God because of his mercy will not send anyone to hell except for deliberate sins BUT He will for original sin anyway.

No, the context shows your interpretation is a perversion of what was said.

You entirely missed the point…again:

supplices (French version = TORTURE.)
He will not punish with Eternal TORMENT/TORTURE
Those innocent of guilt of actual sin.

The idea that Hell is only for TORMENT/TORTURE is erroneous.

But I may have missed where they will enter heaven in the paragraph. If I did, then point to it.

 

[Arnobius]

You entirely missed the point…again:

supplices (French version = TORTURE.)
He will not punish with Eternal TORMENT/TORTURE
Those innocent of guilt of actual sin.

The idea that Hell is only for TORMENT/TORTURE is erroneous.

But I may have missed where they will enter heaven in the paragraph. If I did, then point to it.

Playing with strawmen again? What we do know is that God, being a God of justice and mercy will do what is fair and just for those who do not have the opportunity to be taught the truth.

Since Limbo was never taught as doctrine

speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=12775 (from 1910, so it should be safe from the Vatican II you fear)

We can say that whatever God will do will be just and fair. Perhaps you should examine your own motives instead of implying positions we don’t believe to us.