Salvation outside the Church

[rben20]

To take this so literally seems like the most orthodox position but it is not…so those who are arguing this way really need to pipe down. Google Father Feeney. For all of you who take this position you will realize the Church doesn’t agree with you and actually will EXCOMMUNICATE YOU. Yea this is directed at you chypmonk.

 

[sidbrown]

As was already pointed out, the Catechism is NOT an infallible document. However, Church Doctrines & Dogmas ARE considered to be infallible and MUST be accepted by the Catholic faithful …

• Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (SOURCE: Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)
• About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, “If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers… Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]” (SOURCE: Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)
• In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)
• In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)
• In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins…” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)
• In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “…we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)
• In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)
• The same truth regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation was reaffirmed by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1854 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1863 A.D.; Pope John XXIII on June 29, 1961 A.D.; Pope John Paul I, on August 27, 1978; Pope John Paul II on October 21, 1981, etc.

On the basis of whose sayso do you claim that these teachings are infallible. The previous teachings have been changed and it is now taught that people who have not been baptised by water can be saved.

 

[sidbrown]

Good grief, do you honestly believe that there are no churchmen “in full communion” that would disagree with what you just pointed out ?

Basically, yes. It is only fringe groups who maintain that a person who was not baptised Sacramentally by water will go to hell. I do not doubt that there are people from the Most Holy Family Monastery, the Dimond Brothers and the Slaves of St. Benedict or the Feenyites who disagree.
I would like to know the name of a Catholic clergyman, who is not a member of the Feeney group. or the Most Holy Family Monastery group, who holds that a person who was not baptised Sacramentally by water will always go to hell.

 

[sidbrown]

NON-infallible statements do not carry as much weight as the infallible statements of the extra-ordinary Magisteriam .

True. But it is only some fringe elements of the Catholic Church who do not believe in the possiblity of baptism of desire. In fact, most people know Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as an ultra conservative, and ultra traditional Catholic bishop. So let’s see what he has said on this subject:
“The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.”

 

[sidbrown]

On the basis of whose sayso do you claim that it is infallibly taught that people who were not Sacramentally baptised by water will go to hell? It is now taught that people who have not been baptised by water can be saved. It even has a special name, called implicit baptism of desire.

 

[thistle]

Hmmmm… Well… if you haven’t noticed I have been giving serious answers to serious inquires. It takes time to answer all the above and looking up Church documents…which I still haven’t finished but since you are so upset, I will try to respond to you.

The Catholic Catechism of the Catholic is not Church teaching in the sense of binding on the conscience of all the Faithful:

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching.

Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction pg.XXXVI:
“Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Cardinal Ratzinger says the same as me in his book*",Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church"*:
“The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents** receive no other weight than that which they already possess**. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole.”

Jimmy Akins ( BoD advocate) says the say as me.

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html

God Bless

Have a :wave:nice day

The Catechism is a summary of ALL Church teachings (infallible and non-infallible) and disciplines and ALL Catholics are bound to accept them.

 

[chypmonk]

To take this so literally seems like the most orthodox position but it is not…so those who are arguing this way really need to pipe down. Google Father Feeney. For all of you who take this position you will realize the Church doesn’t agree with you and actually will EXCOMMUNICATE YOU. Yea this is directed at you chypmonk.

Take what literally?

Who will excommunicate me?

Not the pope.

As the famous canon lawyer Peter Vere says, he discussed personally the situation of “Feeneyites” in the Church with CDF:**
“In our discussions with the
Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict
interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as
those who would hold more liberal views.** Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no
manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect
for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope
Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?”
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

:“Feeneyites” are in a better situation than the new un-excommunicated SSPX. They have officially accepted communities [ this was already covered in post #12 at the bottom–link]](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7136825&postcount=12)

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Catechism is a summary of ALL Church teachings (infallible and non-infallible) and disciplines and ALL Catholics are bound to accept them.

That would be incorrect. The Church would never require believers to accepts teachings which MIGHT be untrue and any belief which is not officially declared to be infallible, MIGHT be untrue. And, as was pointed out earlier and even you, yourself have said, the entire Catechism is NOT considered to be infallible.

Let’s look at what the Catechism itself says about this matter on pages 26-27 … This does not mean that the Catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on it as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.” The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church… Note what it says …

… whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church …

This basically is saying that Catholics, in GOOD STANDING, can REJECT parts of the Catechism ESPECIALLY if it conflicts with ESTABLISHED Church Dogma.

 

[TMC]

If you can’t recognize these as infallible statements then I suggest you study theology some more and then we can talk. There is no use for me to give you a theology lesson because you will think it is some kind of trick. Find out how the Church defines dogmas then come back.

I think the problem lies in your understanding of infallibility and the relationship of that doctrine to these statements. The core message of these statements is infallible - all salvation comes through the Church. The Church, through an ecumenical council, has explained how that is reconciled with its teaching that those that are not formal members of the earthly Church can still be saved. It is laid out pretty clearly in Lumen Gentium.

 

[At_Trent]

I want to thank you for explaining your definition of ‘church’.

As I said before, Jesus is our Savior, not a ‘church’ or churches.
Jesus loves all who he has chosen from the foundation of the world to be his child, and even those who are still outside waiting to come in. Ps.139:13-19
Shall we pray for them.

God bless you,

bluelake

Of course I will join you in that prayer. If not, I’d just be going through the motions !

God Bless

 

[chypmonk]

@ AT TRENT

I already addressed the first “problem” now for the second. At least you seem to understand theology enough so we can really discuss this subject --thank you

2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional

They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : “an academic difference to be settled by the Church.” : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that doctrine. This is false.

The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the Deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion.

The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

As the famous canon lawyer Peter Vere says, he discussed personally the situation of “Feeneyites” in the Church with CDF:**
“In our discussions with the
Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict
interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion** as
those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no
manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect
for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope
Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?”
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

:“Feeneyites” are in a better situation than the new un-excommunicated SSPX. They have officially accepted communities this was already covered in post #12 at the bottom–link]

We are in a similar position as the controversy of the Immaculate Conception. One of the Church’s greatest theologian Thomas Aquinas was wrong and one of the weakest theologians, Don Scotus, was right. To excluded discussion on such an important topic as BoD is the most Un-Catholic position one can take. The discussion about the Immaculate conception being true or not was hotly debated for years. Both had saints on their side but the Dominican position lost.

Your author does not want discussion because “Feeneyites” always win the argument. The reason is they use authoritative documentation and logic.

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of three baptisms, as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitly say: “it is de fide…”

Unfortunately for the author St. Alphonsus was never a pope and has NO POWER to define Dogma.

Baptism of Desire is not a defined dogma.

Nor is it the unanimous position of the Church Fathers. It is not Apostolic and can not be traced back to the death of the last Apostle and is contrary to dogmatically interpreted scripture (cf. Jn. 3:5).

The subject has been clouded so I hold no grudge against my opponents. I once thought as them years ago but I honestly investigated it and saw the “Feeneyite” position the most true and Catholic.

And if this is a SSPX article, as you suggest, then it should be known that the SSPX hold one of the MOST Liberal definition of Baptism of desire ( except maybe Karel Rahner ) and NOT supported by tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre believed that even one pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. can be saved without taking Jesus as Lord and Savior:blush: He actually held as SSPX does too, that a non-Catholic can be saved in any religion whatsoever, as the following statements of confirms:
The Book, “Against the Heresies”, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
*
1.***** Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God…But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.* It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216]
*
2.***** Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 217]
*
3.***** Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.* It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church:* ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’* When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell.* Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.* This must be preached.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 217-218]

Well St Alphonsus disagrees with Lefebvre:
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760):
“How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”[Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219]

So which definition of Baptism of Desire did these two pillars in the Church hold? Obviously no the same doctrine.

 

[At_Trent]

To take this so literally seems like the most orthodox position but it is not…so those who are arguing this way really need to pipe down. Google Father Feeney. For all of you who take this position you will realize the Church doesn’t agree with you and actually will EXCOMMUNICATE YOU. Yea this is directed at you chypmonk.

Fr Feeney entered eternal rest in a state of grace didn’t he ?

He was reconciled in 1972, but was not required to retract nor recant his interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus !

There is a reason for that. Doctrine.

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
St. Robert Bellarmine

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”
G.K. Chesterton

 

[At_Trent]

Basically, yes. It is only fringe groups who maintain that a person who was not baptised Sacramentally by water will go to hell. I do not doubt that there are people from the Most Holy Family Monastery, the Dimond Brothers and the Slaves of St. Benedict or the Feenyites who disagree.
I would like to know the name of a Catholic clergyman, who is not a member of the Feeney group. or the Most Holy Family Monastery group, who holds that a person who was not baptised Sacramentally by water will always go to hell.

That is why I can’t discuss it with you. You lump all traditionalists in together and name the most ridiculous and extreme of those to support your argument.

Fr Feeney was not a “vacant chair” proponent and neither am I. I don’t think anyone on this thread is such.

In your world, going by the post quoted, it’s the pre VII Church vs the post VII one, and the post VII one trumps all no matter what. Pastoral documents and the misinterpretaion of them trumps Doctrine huh ? You didn’t say it, but that is what can be read of what you propose.

That message is as dangerous a threat to the Faith as the message a Dimond would present friend, and it that sense, you are on the “fringe” yourself.

 

[At_Trent]

@ AT TRENT

I already addressed the first “problem” now for the second. At least you seem to understand theology enough so we can really discuss this subject --thank you

…

Well St Alphonsus disagrees with Lefebvre:
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760):
“How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”[Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219]

So which definition of Baptism of Desire did these two pillars in the Church hold? Obviously no the same doctrine.

Well, don’t lay to much praise on my theological understanding. I’m lazy in that regard lol. I just read, and as you say, embrace the logical, and accept what I see as a no brainer. Doctrine is what it is.

Yes, that article has a SSPX connection I’ve since found.

As much as I tend to defend the SSPX on the forum against the fueling of stigma some persist in, I’m not a member of the local chapel. I do think they err in some things, one of which you pointed out in your post.

But you are correct. Arguing against Fr Feeney’s stand and interpretation is doomed to fail. Many will not accept that, but in fairness, it’s not their fault I suppose. It takes courage to defend Doctrine and Dogma in modern times, and as time passes, errors are perceived as the truth by more and more.

Modernism is an ugly thing.

 

[Sir_Knight]

On the basis of whose sayso do you claim that these teachings are infallible.

Sources have been listed in the original quote.

The previous teachings have been changed and it is now taught that people who have not been baptised by water can be saved.

Infallible teachings can NOT be changed because that would mean that they were not infallible to begin with.

 

[chypmonk]

I think the problem lies in your understanding of infallibility and the relationship of that doctrine to these statements. The core message of these statements is infallible - all salvation comes through the Church. The Church, through an ecumenical council, has explained how that is reconciled with its teaching that those that are not formal members of the earthly Church can still be saved. It is laid out pretty clearly in Lumen Gentium.

Vat.II avoided anything infallible that touched on “new” teaching. I have read Lumen Gentium in light of all the Dogmatic statements of the past and see no problem with my position and Vatican II.
The present Pope says we need continuity of the Faith. If you think that Vat.II is saying there is salvation outside the Church I think you are mistaken.

The definitions I have already presented have NEVER said the the dogma the way you do but only that one needs to be IN the Church to be saved.

this is from Vatican II sounds more like me than my opponents:

Second Vatican Council, Ad Gentes #7:
“This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:45), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12).Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and** all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body**. For Christ Himself **“by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), **at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”(17) though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

So it is impossible to please God without the Catholic Faith? Does that sound “Feeneyite”? The ignorant will find that Faith.

or that Jesus Christ Himself stressed the necessity of Faith and Baptism

 

[TMC]

Vat.II avoided anything infallible that touched on “new” teaching. I have read Lumen Gentium in light of all the Dogmatic statements of the past and see no problem with my position and Vatican II.
The present Pope says we need continuity of the Faith. If you think that Vat.II is saying there is salvation outside the Church I think you are mistaken.

The definitions I have already presented have NEVER said the the dogma the way you do but only that one needs to be IN the Church to be saved.

this is from Vatican II sounds more like me than my opponents:

Second Vatican Council, Ad Gentes #7:
“This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:45), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12).Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and** all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body**. For Christ Himself **“by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), **at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”(17) though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

So it is impossible to please God without the Catholic Faith? Does that sound “Feeneyite”? The ignorant will find that Faith.

or that Jesus Christ Himself stressed the necessity of Faith and Baptism

Now I am confused as to your position. Lumen Gentium explained that Christians that are not Catholic can be saved (LG 15). It also explained that even Muslims, Jews and those of non-Abrahamic faiths can be saved. (LG 16) As I understand, you hold that none of those people can be saved, right? So how is your position not at odds with the teaching of Lumen Gentium?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Now I am confused as to your position. Lumen Gentium explained that Christians that are not Catholic can be saved (LG 15). It also explained that even Muslims, Jews and those of non-Abrahamic faiths can be saved. (LG 16) As I understand, you hold that none of those people can be saved, right? So how is your position not at odds with the teaching of Lumen Gentium?

I can’t speak for Chypmonk but I can say that LG 15&16 do not say that non-Catholics can be saved as such. #15 speaks of protestants being related in “some real way” to the Catholic Church and that She hopes and prays that they return to communion.

The relevant portion of #16 states:

*Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. *

Again, there’s no salvation outside the Catholic Church being presented here - instead it speaks of whatever truth is present in false religions is a preparation for Gospel.

 

[TMC]

I can’t speak for Chypmonk but I can say that LG 15&16 do not say that non-Catholics can be saved as such. #15 speaks of protestants being related in “some real way” to the Catholic Church and that She hopes and prays that they return to communion.

The relevant portion of #16 states:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

Again, there’s no salvation outside the Catholic Church being presented here - instead it speaks of whatever truth is present in false religions is a preparation for Gospel.

Either you have a redacted version of Lumen Gentium, or you are putting a pretty heavy spin on what it says. The sentence before the two you quote says:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

What does “those also can attain to salvation” mean if it does not mean that they can be saved? The same is reflected in CCC 1260, so that is clearly how the current and last popes have interpreted Lumen Gentium.

 

[chypmonk]

Well, don’t lay to much praise on my theological understanding. I’m lazy in that regard lol. I just read, and as you say, embrace the logical, and accept what I see as a no brainer. Doctrine is what it is.

Yes, that article has a SSPX connection I’ve since found.

As much as I tend to defend the SSPX on the forum against the fueling of stigma some persist in, I’m not a member of the local chapel. I do think they err in some things, one of which you pointed out in your post.

But you are correct. Arguing against Fr Feeney’s stand and interpretation is doomed to fail. Many will not accept that, but in fairness, it’s not their fault I suppose. It takes courage to defend Doctrine and Dogma in modern times, and as time passes, errors are perceived as the truth by more and more.

Modernism is an ugly thing.

Nice to hear

Let me cover the Third “problem”

3/ Third error : The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification “but not for salvation”.

I agree this is a problem and I don’t accept it.

Feeney being a sublet theologian was quite correct in his distinction between justification and salvation. He was trying to deal with the one word “desire” used in Trent. He at least didn’t just ignore what a particular council said but tried to incorporate it into all of tradition without a contradiction. His understanding, in general, is correct.

The reason I think he is mistaken is, as I quoted, above there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins outside the Church:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin

the section about desire is explained clearly [here-link]

The key quote from Trent is:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4:
“This translation [Justification-reception of Sanctifying Grace] however cannot take place, since promulgation of the Gospel, without the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” ( Jn. 3:5)"

If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire (BoD) advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved.

According to this understanding ( i.e. “at least to have the actual desire/vow for baptism”), it would seem that it would grave error to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage, especially SSPX, in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved. They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.

Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of many baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in grave error for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.

But since there is no forgiveness of sins outside the Church, one needs to be Sacramental Baptized to be a member of the Church and thus to be justified.

The word “or” in the above quote does not mean “either” baptism “or” desire for baptism but that when “or” is proceeded by a negative it means “and” not “either”

One cannot have a Martini without gin or vermouth.

The reason this must be the correct understanding is right after this statement in Trent with “desire” says as it is written, i.e. literally :
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” ( Jn. 3:5)"
No exception made by scripture so how could that support desire?
Understanding “or” as “and” is the only answer