Salvation outside the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
preV2tradcath said:
Exactly. I am of the opinion that he should have gone but let’s not let discussing that derail this thread.
Click to expand...
His disobedience is central to this thread. He was called to Rome for correction in his misapplication of EENS, but he refused to submit to Rome. Feeneyism is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. It is NOT acceptable to adhere to his mistaken views of EENS.
 
StTommyMore said:
His disobedience is central to this thread. He was called to Rome for correction in his misapplication of EENS, but he refused to submit to Rome. Feeneyism is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. It is NOT acceptable to adhere to his mistaken views of EENS.
Click to expand...
Then why was he reconciled without requiring a retraction ?

🍿
 
StTommyMore said:
The graciousness of the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
You do realize by claiming such a thing (with *no *basis… you don’t know the mind of the Holy Father, or the Bishop that reconciled Fr. Feeney), that you effectively strip excommunication of any meaning… Being excommunicated can mean nothing to you if it has no real consequences and the Holy Father can reconcile someone without having them recant. Either the truth matters or it doesn’t. Since when has the Church ever tolerated heresy?

Being excommunicated for disobedience is not at all the same as being excommunicated for heresy, this is why Fr. Feeney could be excommunicated and then reconciled without having to recant. His stance on EENS was never condemned as heretical… and all of his followers today are in good standing with the Church. There are at least 3 communities who hold to his stance on EENS, all in good standing with their Bishop(s) and the Church.
 
AnneElliot said:
You do realize by claiming such a thing (with *no *basis… you don’t know the mind of the Holy Father, or the Bishop that reconciled Fr. Feeney), that you effectively strip excommunication of any meaning… Being excommunicated can mean nothing to you if it has no real consequences and the Holy Father can reconcile someone without having them recant. Either the truth matters or it doesn’t. Since when has the Church ever tolerated heresy?

Being excommunicated for disobedience is not at all the same as being excommunicated for heresy, this is why Fr. Feeney could be excommunicated and then reconciled without having to recant. His stance on EENS was never condemned as heretical… and all of his followers today are in good standing with the Church. There are at least 3 communities who hold to his stance on EENS, all in good standing with their Bishop(s) and the Church.
Click to expand...
How can Feeneyism be legit when it is in contrary to authoritative documents?
 
A moment of clarity.

The Holy Office issued a Protocol on August 8, 1949 comdemning the viewpoint expressed in From the Housetops, vol. 3, which contained the EENS article.

Fr. Feeney never signed any of the EENS articles, therefore he had nothing to recant.
 
JM3 said:
A moment of clarity.

The Holy Office issued a Protocol on August 8, 1949 comdemning the viewpoint expressed in From the Housetops, vol. 3, which contained the EENS article.

Fr. Feeney never signed any of the EENS articles, therefore he had nothing to recant.
Click to expand...
Well shoot. I’m a Feeneyite again.🙂
 
Is there a # of retractions and recantations after which one may not be saved ?

I’m getting a headache. Is desire to really know enough ?
 
rskempf said:
Hi - this is a rather tricky subject. It is best to consider the subject considering and contemplating the church that Jesus Christ established before his passion and death. Forget for a moment about labels such as catholic, episcopal, anglican, presbyterian, protestant, evangelical, etc.

We can all agree that Jesus saved us with his sacrafice. He said before he left us that he would send the Holy Spirit. He gave Peter the keys and established a church to guide us through the ages.

What we have to do is beleive. Our creator and savior after all would not come to save us and then leave us to the “wolves.” His church is our guide.

If anyone knows this history and still rejects the church Jesus established, then they are risking their salvation.

The catholic church reiterated this truth, that many people knew before anyway, to remind this modern busy world what is really important.

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
rs,
Mt.16;19 has been the subject of debate for centuries.
To give the Keys to one faction would shut out others. Do you really think that is what Christ meant?
Jesus Christ died for all who have been saved by grace. Eph.2:8-9
We are forbidden to judge the salvation of other believers. Jesus also gave us this ‘Great Commandment,’ that we should love one another.
See Lu.10:27, Mt.22:36-39. This last passage is called “The Greatest Commandment.”
We are also not to judge others. Mt.7:1-5
I love you in the Lord. 🙂

God bless,
bluelake
 
bluelake said:
rs,
Mt.16;19 has been the subject of debate for centuries.
To give the Keys to one faction would shut out others. Do you really think that is what Christ meant?
Jesus Christ died for all who have been saved by grace. Eph.2:8-9
We are forbidden to judge the salvation of other believers. Jesus also gave us this ‘Great Commandment,’ that we should love one another.
See Lu.10:27, Mt.22:36-39. This last passage is called “The Greatest Commandment.”
We are also not to judge others. Mt.7:1-5
I love you in the Lord. 🙂

God bless,
bluelake
Click to expand...
You raise valid points. But I fear you are not going to make any headway, as most of the posters on this thread see only the institutional Church, and neglect the spiritual dimension of the Church, and as a result deny her sacramentality (or, if you prefer, the Mystery of the Church)
 
tal said:
the current Prefect of the Congregation of Faith also respects muslims and jews, so I wouldn’t follow antipopes, wake up and compare what the fathers of the early church have always taught up until vatican ll and what is taught now, it is diametrically different {opposite}!
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, are you saying that Cardinal Levada is an antipope because he respects Muslims and Jews?

So does Pope Benedict XVI and so did Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.

Before they were elected popes John XXIII and John Paul II both cared for Jews during WW II. Cardinal Roncali (John XXIII would sneak into the hiding places of Jewish children whom he was hiding and did not have a Rabbi and presided over the Shabbat services for them. He’s a Blessed today. St. Maximilian Kolbe, presided over Shabbat services for Jews while in prison and he’s canonized. St. Francis of Assisi prayed with Muslims long before us. Blessed Mother Teresa also prayed with Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Protestants.

None of these folks were antipopes or is this what you believe? Love and respect is something that we owe to everyone. Although we believe that the fulness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church, many of the truths and much of the good that we believe can be found outside of the Catholic Church. It is one thing to say that they lack the fulness of truth and quite another to say that they have nothing that is Catholic. These days, the Church has pointed out many Catholic truths and virtues found in Islam and Judaism. It is her hope that Catholics will be able to recognize these truths where ever they may be and that Muslims and Jews may follow these truths to find the rest.

Or do you believe that our current Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, the man entrusted with defending and promoting the faith, is an antipope?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
StTommyMore said:
His disobedience is central to this thread. He was called to Rome for correction in his misapplication of EENS, but he refused to submit to Rome. Feeneyism is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. It is NOT acceptable to adhere to his mistaken views of EENS.
Click to expand...
I think it would be far more fruitful to discuss “salvation outside the church” without referring to Feeney, Feeneyism and EENS (both application and misapplication)
 
I believe that on this question there are two kinds of people.


  1. *]Those who believe that they know more than the pope.

    *]Those wo truly do not understand what the current popes are saying.

    They may react similarly, but for very different reasons. We have to be crystal clear with the first group that we will not follow down that slippery slope and be very patient with the second group, because they are not trying to be arrogant. More often they are frustrated. I know that when I’m trying to understand something important and it just does not make sense, I can get very frustrated and say some pretty dumb things. Anyone here ever done that or am I the only one?

    Fraternally,

    Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I believe that on this question there are two kinds of people.

  1. *]Those who believe that they know more than the pope.
    *]Those wo truly do not understand what the current popes are saying.

    They may react similarly, but for very different reasons. We have to be crystal clear with the first group that we will not follow down that slippery slope and be very patient with the second group, because they are not trying to be arrogant. More often they are frustrated. I know that when I’m trying to understand something important and it just does not make sense, I can get very frustrated and say some pretty dumb things. Anyone here ever done that or am I the only one?
Click to expand...

  1. You will find similar or identical groups on every thread. While responding to them, keep in mind others who genuinely seek truth or want to share something which they genuinely believe to be truth. Also think over this: how many of us are really qualified to either defend or oppose papal views?
 
Pitcharan said:
You will find similar or identical groups on every thread. While responding to them, keep in mind others who genuinely seek truth or want to share something which they genuinely believe to be truth. Also think over this: how many of us are really qualified to either defend or oppose papal views?
Click to expand...
Bold is mine.

This is very true. We should add to this that most popes do not write for the laity. They write for bishops and theologians. There are very few documents that were actually written for specific target audiences such as the lay faithful, religious, clergy, deacons and so forth.

When they write for bishops and theologians, they may use language very differently from the man in the pew. Having lived in Rome for seven-years I was able to observe this directly by attending the Pope’s weekly address to the faithful. His language is very different and the topics are usually very spiritual or pastoral, rarely does he try to speak as a theologian or a scholar. Some popes are better at this than others. It’s human nature. We are all better at some things than others. I think this is what made John Paul II so endearing. He was very good communicating with the lay faithful, especially the young. He was very simple. Yet, his writings are not so simple, because they were not meant for the same audience.

Pope usually leave it up to bishops and teachers to translate their message so that the common man understands.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Bold is mine…
Pope usually leave it up to bishops and teachers to translate their message so that the common man understands.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks JR. Now coming to the subject of discussion, even before I learnt at CAF about EENS and its application / misapplication, I was quite clear about salvation outside the church. Regarding papal view I felt, that since the CC solemnises marriages between catholics and non-christians, salvation is possible outside the church; else the CC would not knowingly unite a believer to someone who is hell bound. I came across several verses in the NT that clearly suggest that there is also salvation possible apart from formal baptism. I can cite them if you want and share below the crux of my learning:

Our Lord showcased humble gentiles and lauded their faith, thus teaching that anybody outside the church can gain faith through humility and other works of love. I would like to call this “circumcision of heart” OR “baptism of desire”, though the official CC meaning may be different. His expectation from us baptised believers is to live the gospel and be a shining example to others who by seeing us may either formally join us or be “baptised by desire” and follow our example
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top