Salvation for Catholics only

[SemperFidelis]

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

Actually the SSPX, as well as the SSPV and CMRI (both sedevacantists) interpret EENS the same way the Magisterium does. The only groups I can think of who are Feeneyites are the St. Benedict Center (who are in the Church) and the Most Holy Family Monastery (who most definitely are not, as they are sedevacantists). I’m sure there are individuals both inside and outside the Church and independent Churches who are Feeneyites as well, but they are probably pretty scarce.

 

[TNT]

RE:
…It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and

1. zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts
2. ready to obey God,
3. live an honest and upright life,
   [1,2,3 is more or less the improbable imaginary man.]
   can
   by the operating power of
   1. divine light
   2. grace

Then can attain eternal life,…

So, what does one mean by “divine light” and what does one DO having received it? Or is it necessary to do anything with it?
and
what does one mean by “grace” . Is it the Grace received in Baptism and the other sacraments, or is it some transitory grace that God gives to all in the form of…what? What does one DO having received it? Or is it necessary to do anything with it?

Well, gotta get back to tormenting my inlaws.

 

[Arnobius]

Actually the SSPX, as well as the SSPV and CMRI (both sedevacantists) interpret EENS the same way the Magisterium does today. The only groups I can think of who are Feeneyites are the St. Benedict Center (who are in the Church) and the Most Holy Family Monastery (who most definitely aren’t, as they are sedevacantists). I’m sure there are individuals both inside and outside the Church and independent Churches who are Feeneyites as well, but they are probably pretty scarce.

Most of the SSPX I know take the Feeneyite line, but I suppose it is possible they are in error that way as well

 

[SemperFidelis]

Most of the SSPX I know take the Feeneyite line, but I suppose it is possible they are in error that way as well

There are some individuals who might, but they are not in-line with the official SSPX stance. They have several articles on their website (I gave links to four of them in post #58), and they sell several books at www.angeluspress.org that are aimed at refuting the Feeneyite position, such as The Catholic Church and Salvation, by Msgr. Joseph Fenton.

 

[JohnGrey]

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.

I’ve made a pretty fair pass over theology throughout the deposit of Faith, and I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard of God being referred to as fair. Fair is an adjective for the childish games we play in school, engineered in such a way as to leave no one out. Fairness is a distinctly American idea, a democratic idea, whose odor I would not be surprised is an offense to the Almighty.

Arnobius:

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)

speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=2272
A link from the same site in support of Limbo as doctrine at very least, and possibly an infallible dogma by virtue of universal Magisterium.

Arnobius:

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.

I can’t speak for others, but my pursuit has always been that of truth, and when I see a consistent message about the licitness and correctness of Limbo throughout the history of the Church, and then a sudden reversal in recent times, I can’t help but ask myself if it isn’t more a matter of sentimentalism than charity.

The fact of the matter is that God is merciful, yes, as He is just. His justice is that all men are worthy of the second death by virtue of atavistic sin. His mercy was to send His Son to die to give us the possibility of redemption, not the promise. This is at the root of the great tumult of “for many” and “for all” in the consecration. Each and every person is worthy of death and Hell, not excluding the baby that has just drawn breath.

 

[Arnobius]

I’ve made a pretty fair pass over theology throughout the deposit of Faith, and I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard of God being referred to as fair. Fair is an adjective for the childish games we play in school, engineered in such a way as to leave no one out. Fairness is a distinctly American idea, a democratic idea, whose odor I would not be surprised is an offense to the Almighty.

That should have read merciful and just. A mistake on my part. I missed that on my proofread

speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=2272
A link from the same site in support of Limbo as doctrine at very least, and possibly an infallible dogma by virtue of universal Magisterium.

Also an opinion piece.

I can’t speak for others, but my pursuit has always been that of truth, and when I see a consistent message about the licitness and correctness of Limbo throughout the history of the Church, and then a sudden reversal in recent times, I can’t help but ask myself if it isn’t more a matter of sentimentalism than charity.

I doubt it, From Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
"Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (Children’s Limbo). (p114).

It is not considered a doctrine in Ott, but is mentioned in passing. The issue seems to be though that we do not know what happens to them, and must trust a Just and Merciful God to do what is right.

They are certainly not in the state of the one in a state of actual sin though.

The fact of the matter is that God is merciful, yes, as He is just. His justice is that all men are worthy of the second death by virtue of atavistic sin. His mercy was to send His Son to die to give us the possibility of redemption, not the promise. This is at the root of the great tumult of “for many” and “for all” in the consecration. Each and every person is worthy of death and Hell, not excluding the baby that has just drawn breath.

This is true of course, but God, entrusting His mission to the Church knows that where the Church is hindered from spreading, those who are not able to receive the truth, there is a question of how they can accept something that is not known to them. Hence things like the statement of Pius IX and invincible ignorance.

But I have never denied the need for evangelization, and that while the one with invincible ignorance will not be held accountable for what he cannot know, that does not excuse us from our evangelizing.

 

[TMC]

The fact of the matter is that God is merciful, yes, as He is just. His justice is that all men are worthy of the second death by virtue of atavistic sin. His mercy was to send His Son to die to give us the possibility of redemption, not the promise. This is at the root of the great tumult of “for many” and “for all” in the consecration. Each and every person is worthy of death and Hell, not excluding the baby that has just drawn breath.

And in His infinity mercy of the 60 or so billion humans that have ever lived, perhaps 50 billion have had no realistic possibility of redemption because they had the poor foresight to be born on the wrong continent? Do you think God loves you and I more than He loves His children in Africa and Asia? What did they do to offend Him so? What did we do to please Him? Or is the roll of the dice really the single most important factor in salvation, because if you are right, then chance has more to do with salvation then anything else. Sucks for the Chinese, I guess.

Seem to me that Paul thought that Christ came for non-believers, or why did he tell Timothy:

For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe.

 

[JohnGrey]

Arnobius:

Also an opinion piece.

Just so long as you do not argue that yours enjoys a primacy over mine.

Arnobius:

I doubt it, From Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
"Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (Children’s Limbo). (p114).

It is not considered a doctrine in Ott, but is mentioned in passing. The issue seems to be though that we do not know what happens to them, and must trust a Just and Merciful God to do what is right.

They are certainly not in the state of the one in a state of actual sin though.

And while Ott is a good sourcepoint, it is not the Thomas Guide to Catholic theology. But you are correct in asserting that we do not know, and I personally feel that any dogmatic statements dealing with the eternal state of unbaptised children will necessarily state that they are excluded from beatific vision, as has been taught by numerous councils and time immemorial.

More to the point, though, is the de fide dogma that original sin is sufficient to deny a soul beatific vision. I argue, as do many apparently, that anything more is gross speculation and sentimentalism.

Arnobius:

This is true of course, but God, entrusting His mission to the Church knows that where the Church is hindered from spreading, those who are not able to receive the truth, there is a question of how they can accept something that is not known to them. Hence things like the statement of Pius IX and invincible ignorance.

But I have never denied the need for evangelization, and that while the one with invincible ignorance will not be held accountable for what he cannot know, that does not excuse us from our evangelizing.

And I do not question the overall concept of invincible ignorance, all least not in terms of radical Feeneyism, but I do not endorse it with such liberty that it seems to enjoy in the minds of most modern theologians nor do I think it particularly common. Even Bl. Pius XII, while giving it possibility with the one hand, obviously considers it so unlikely (as echoed in his Syllabus of Errors), that he considers evangelization of paramount importance.

Likewise, the means of invincible ignorance very much requires an exercise of interior assent to natural law, that is manifested in a marginally successful attempt at living righteously. Of course, the Pelagian ubermensch would be quite impossible in this regard, but the result is the same: interior assent is paramount in extraordinary cases, just as the absolute desire and belief in the efficacy of sacramental baptism is required for justification of the catechumen.

 

[Arnobius]

Just so long as you do not argue that yours enjoys a primacy over mine.

Just to clarify here, I meant that the article cited here was literally an opinion piece or editorial, and was different than citing a theological work. it was not meant as a comment against you personally

 

[JohnGrey]

And in His infinity mercy of the 60 or so billion humans that have ever lived, perhaps 50 billion have had no realistic possibility of redemption because they had the poor foresight to be born on the wrong continent? Do you think God loves you and I more than He loves His children in Africa and Asia? What did they do to offend Him so? What did we do to please Him? Or is the roll of the dice really the single most important factor in salvation, because if you are right, then chance has more to do with salvation then anything else. Sucks for the Chinese, I guess.

This is precisely so, and it is that that makes evangelism so very important. It is for that reason that we are preach the Gospel to every living creature. Because I believe as much that we will share a culpability in the damnation of those that we could’ve reached, but did not.

TMC:

Seem to me that Paul thought that Christ came for non-believers, or why did he tell Timothy:

Certainly He came for the possibility that through Him all men would be reconciled to the Father. But He did not consider it a foregone conclusion, or even that many would choose Him. And it’s not like we’re in the Middle Ages; dissemination of the Gospel, lacking though it is in many areas of dogma, has essentially saturated much of the Earth.

 

[GerardP]

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.

The “Magisterium” didn’t decree anything. That’s the whole point. It’s not Magisterial because it came from a congregation. Do you even know what “Magisterium” means?

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.

“Legalistic arguments” Oh my…don’t let facts get in the way.

Do everyone a favor and stop hiding behind terms like “the Church” when you don’t understand what’s going on.

The Holy Office said he was excommunicated.

NOT FOR HERESY!!! Get your facts straight.

The Saint Benedict Center denies this.

They deny the validity because of defect of form. In any case, it wasn’t for heresy and Feeney was reconciled by reciting the Athanasian Creed and never had to recant of his position.

I recognize the Holy Office as representing the Magisterium, not the Saint Benedict Center.

Irrelevant. You aren’t even consistent. At the top of your post you claim “the Magisterium has decreed” and now you display an ever greater lack of understanding by “representing the Magisterium”

Further, you don’t even seem to care whether Churchmen are doing their job or pulling one over on you as long as they have a title.

 

[Arnobius]

The “Magisterium” didn’t decree anything. That’s the whole point. It’s not Magisterial because it came from a congregation. Do you even know what “Magisterium” means?

“Legalistic arguments” Oh my…don’t let facts get in the way.

Do everyone a favor and stop hiding behind terms like “the Church” when you don’t understand what’s going on.

NOT FOR HERESY!!! Get your facts straight.

They deny the validity because of defect of form. In any case, it wasn’t for heresy and Feeney was reconciled by reciting the Athanasian Creed and never had to recant of his position.

Irrelevant. You aren’t even consistent. At the top of your post you claim “the Magisterium has decreed” and now you display an ever greater lack of understanding by “representing the Magisterium”

Further, you don’t even seem to care whether Churchmen are doing their job or pulling one over on you as long as they have a title.

In other words, when you can’t actually refute what I say, repeat it again without legitimate proof and use the ad hominem to attack your opponent.

As for your own lack of understanding, I invite you to read Christus Dominus:
9. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

Get your own facts straight. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise, the excommunication of Feeney came as a result of his false teachings which were represented as Catholic:

Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949:
After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

No matter how you or the St Benedict Center try to explain away the validity, the facts are that Feeney taught incorrectly on EENS and refused correction from the legitimate authorities. Since you cannot refute it, you seek to negate its authority and employ the ad hominem against those who disagree with your own erroneous interpretation.

The decree of excommunication:
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100

Once published in AAS, it is considered official, so you cannot deny the validity of the excommunication. The documents indicate that the grave disobedience was over his refusal to accept correction over EENS.

Produce an official document from the appropriate office in the Vatican if you disagree and stop tiring us with the false representations from the Slaves of Mary website, and the debating over the minutiae of semantics.

 

[GerardP]

In other words, when you can’t actually refute what I say, repeat it again without legitimate proof and use the ad hominem to attack your opponent.

I’m not “refuting” what you say. I’m adding the facts that you refuse to admit to.

And pointing out that you misuse terminology is not an “ad-hominem” attack.

As for your own lack of understanding, I invite you to read Christus Dominus:9. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

Oh C’mon. The 1949 letter was not entered into the Acts of the Apostolic See. It never officially had the proper form to engage the Authority of the Pope. Cardinal Ottaviani was notorious for making mandates and claiming “This is the will of the Holy Father” when Cardinal Bea and others close to Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI knew he was full of it.

Get your own facts straight. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise, the excommunication of Feeney came as a result of his false teachings which were represented as Catholic:

This is just wishful thinking on your part. Answer me this: Why did Fr. Feeney not have to recant his views and why did his followers who have reconciled and been regularized never have to compromise their position on the dogma?

No matter how you or the St Benedict Center try to explain away the validity, the facts are that Feeney taught incorrectly on EENS and refused correction from the legitimate authorities.

Feeney did not teach incorrectly otherwise he would have had to recant or die a heretic and the Church has not declared a literal reading of its own dogma as heresy. The fact is legitimate authorities illegitimately broke protocol to “get rid” of Feeney’s defense of Catholic dogma.

Since you cannot refute it, you seek to negate its authority and employ the ad hominem against those who disagree with your own erroneous interpretation.

Nonsense. This is a desperate attempt to justify your adherence to an error concerning a dogma of the Church.

You want to play along with the “railroading” that was done and turn a blind eye to an obvious abuse of authority and an injustice committed.

You consistently appeal to incorrect statements, cite things as magisterial that aren’t, refuse to look at the facts and youcontinue to act as if table pounding will make your wrong statements true.

The decree of excommunication:

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Again from the Fr. Feeney fact sheet:

On February 13, 1953 a letter of excommunication was released, having no statement at all in it on doctrine**, but had as its reason “grave disobedience of Church authority.” Though this letter was registered into the Acta, it is formally defective and thus invalid for the following reasons:

1. The letter lacked the seal of the Holy Office and/or of the tribunal and was only signed by a notary. In fact, it bore no seal at all. The purpose of a seal is precisely to show the genuineness of a document and its contents, and is required for validity.
2. The letter lacked the signature of the judge of the tribunal which issued it; where, for validity, the judgment of a court of record must have.
3. The decree was never properly communicated to the accused, which by law (and fairness) it must. It was first published in America in the newspapers.
4. Father Feeney’s summons to Rome was uncanonical. Therefore, the summons was null and the penalties resulting from it are void.

Canon 1723: “Renders an uncanonical summons null.”
Canon 1959: “Forbids penalties without a trial.”

1. There was never any canonical trial by a court concerning this case as proscribed by the disciplinary canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. Therefore, according to Canon Law, no valid penalties could result.
2. As allowed by Canon Law, Father Feeney sent a letter dated July 16, 1953, entering a “Complaint of Nullity” against the decree of excommunication, to the Holy Father. It was never answered. Not only was Father Feeney not given a fair hearing, he was given no hearing at all, though required by Canon Law.**

Once published in AAS, it is considered official, so you cannot deny the validity of the excommunication.

Then refute the points I’ve posted above.

The documents indicate that the grave disobedience was over his refusal to accept correction over EENS.

Which document specifically are you referring to and why should I believe them?

 

[GerardP]

Produce an official document from the appropriate office in the Vatican if you disagree and stop tiring us with the false representations from the Slaves of Mary website, and the debating over the minutiae of semantics.

How will I know what an official document is? There must be some kind of protocol to determine what makes a document official right? Unless of course you agree with it, then it can be written on TP from the Vatican and it’s treated like a Papal Bull.

Why don’t you actually address a point that the SBC brings up about Feeney and prove them wrong instead of simply calling them “false representations”

Finally if you’re tired of semantics, that’s your problem. The Church Councils have wrestled with single words that would have changed the course of History. If you don’t care, that’s pure willfull on your part and you can follow the blind into the ditch.

 

[Arnobius]

I really see no reason to waste any more time with you Gerard. I have cited the relevant documents, and it is up for you to disprove them.

The SBC has given no valid reason why I should accept their interpretation over that of the proper Curia documents, and neither have you. All you have done is try to use legalisms as to why an action of the Curia, approved by the Pope is not valid.

Your fallacy of Reversing the Burden of Proof does nothing to help your case. The fact is, you cannot refute this, yet obstinately cling to your error.

The fact remains that only the SBC denies that Feeney had a false understanding of EENS. We have provided the proper documents. Your response was to merely seek to evade them, ignoring that all of the actions taken with him directly relate to his false ideas.

 

[GerardP]

I really see no reason to waste any more time with you Gerard.

A good reason would be to address the facts and answer some simple questions.

I have cited the relevant documents, and it is up for you to disprove them.

“You ask for a black swan and then disqualify all my swans because they are black.”–Chesterton

The SBC has given no valid reason why I should accept their interpretation over that of the proper Curia documents, and neither have you.

The SBC has given very valid reasons why the Curial documents are not proper. But you’ll have none of that it seems. The documents came down from Heaven and are perfect. Correct?

All you have done is try to use legalisms as to why an action of the Curia, approved by the Pope is not valid.

And you’ve avoided clarifying any of your terms, putting any precision in your points and you’ve avoided addressing any counterarguments with the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”
The problem isn’t legalisms, it’s your state of denial.

Your fallacy of Reversing the Burden of Proof does nothing to help your case.

The burden of proof has been met by the SBC. You refuse to prove your assertion that they are making false statements.
Back up what you assert.

The fact is, you cannot refute this, yet obstinately cling to your error.

Table pounding on your part and nothing more. Feeney died in the Catholic Church without recanting his position on EENS.

The fact remains that only the SBC denies that Feeney had a false understanding of EENS.

And Rome it seems, though they don’t play it up.

We have provided the proper documents.

Who’s “we”? You keep saying they are the “proper” documents but you haven’t addressed Feeney’s argument from Canon Law and canonical protocols that the documents weren’t proper.

Your response was to merely seek to evade them, ignoring that all of the actions taken with him directly relate to his false ideas.

That’s a lie of course. I’ve evaded nothing. You’ve refused to answer one question I’ve posed. You’ve been smoked on this issue.

You don’t even acknowledge that Paul VI lifted the unjust excommunication and Feeney did not have to recant!

Feeney was consistent. Rome was not. Deal with that and get renounce the curial, ultramontanistic impeccability schtick.

 

[Arnobius]

You only continue to prove my point with every word you say

CUM TACENT, CLAMANT. When they are silent, they shout. --Cicero, Oratio in Catilinam I, 21:6)

 

[GerardP]

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.

I would recommend in fairness that you read Fr. Feeney’s take on these events. They are completely reasonable and plausible.

Feeney saw the defense of this doctrine as the root cause of the problems in the Church which I believe he called the “De-Incarnationalizing” Christ.

Charles Coulombe once said that Fr. Feeney was the main stumbling block for liberals to get to Vatican II and hijack it as they’d planned. He said, “Before you could get to Vatican II, you’d have to get rid of Fr. Feeney.” Whether it was part of a grand scheme that men knew about or whether it was the Devil pulling strings behind the scenes. It fits very well.

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),

The problem is most people want to compromise with those extremists out of human respect and emotional appeals.

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.

That’s not what Fr. Feeney said. He simply concluded as I do that God would provide a physical baptism whether we knew about it or not.

 

[bear06]

I checked with a canonist regarding the Acta Apostolicae Sedis argument. He said that it only has to be published per the Holy Father not necessarily published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This would make it appear that the Acta Apostolicae Sedis is a vehicle but not necessarily the only one. This would make sense since it used to just have to be stuck to the door. It would appear that the publication per the Holy Father was the nail in the coffin on this one. It probably wouldn’t have had force if it was simply “from one bishop to another” because the faithful wouldn’t have known about it which is quite important. The fact that it’s cited in LG might have been the first hint that there is force behind it. Maybe Deacon Cameron will way in if he gets a chance.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s not what Fr. Feeney said. He simply concluded as I do that God would provide a physical baptism whether we knew about it or not.

If this physical baptism occurs after death, then all it answers is the “how” of baptism of desire or blood. It doesn’t say that such a thing does not actually exist; it just answers or speculates upon what form it might take. (And I happen to agree that it will take tangible form, at that time.)

Also, keep in mind that there can be no such thing as a living person who has baptism of desire - if they consciously desire baptism in this life, then they have to make firm and detailed plans to physically get to a Church, and physically get wet. If they then die on the way there, then we can say that they had “baptism of desire” but if they had kind of a vague idea of “maybe, some day,” but never actually did anything about it, then it’s difficult to say whether they could have had baptism of desire in any meaningful sense.

I have no more love for “liberals” than anyone else, but it’s possible to fall off the road and into the right-hand ditch, while criticizing and running away from those who have fallen into the left-hand ditch - our guide - our “center line” if you will - is the Vatican. By staying in line with the Vatican, we can avoid the ditches on both sides of the road. (And be loved by neither conservatives nor liberals, but we aren’t supposed to be seeking human favour, anyway.)