Salvation outside the church

[jim28]

mgrfn
Easy to excommunicate him on his disobedience. As a Jesuit, he has a special vow of obedience to the Holy Father.

He never disobeyed the Holy Father Personally. Pius XII never signed the summons. Fr. Feeney was illegally being asked to come to Rome. He wrote that he was being treated unfairly by:
a) Violation of the ‘secrecy of the Holy Office’ in leaking their
correspondence to the public press.
b)The cardinal’s repeated threats of imposing penalties without either
accusations or proceedings, as required by the canons.
c)The dissemination of Protocol 122/49 as a doctrinal pronouncement of the
Holy See, knowing that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis
(Acts of the Apostolic See).

He was excommunicated illegally.

He was not given a reason why he was excommunicated? He certainly was, and it was obvious to every one.

No he wasn’t. You and people like you just assume.

Tell me the canons in the Code where Feeney was entitled to anything of the sort.

Canons 1715 and 1723 of the CIC 1917

He hated the Jews, and he taught that salvation thru baptism of desire was ineffective, which is heretical.

I’m sorry you have such a hatred for Fr. Feeney. I find it amazing that you know he hated Jews, since he never said anything of the sort. Baptism of Desire has never been defined as a dogma. In the matter of fact it contradicts Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.” and also,
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov.
22, 1439,: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to
the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments;
through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of
the Church. And since death entered the universe through the
first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit,
we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of
heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”
One must be a member of the Church to be saved. One must be Baptized with “real and natural water” to be in the Church. Jews are neither Baptized nor believe in the Dogmas of the Church. We all should hate the Jewish religion because all false religions are of the Devil and the Jewish religion was nullified (made false) with the Institution of the Catholic Church. We should love the sinner hate the sin.

He should have stuck with Fish on Friday. He was a writer, and a poet, not a theologian.

One does not have to be a Theologian to believe or understand dogma.

I also wanted to add that Fr. Feeney converted 100’s of people to the Catholic Church while Archbishop Cushing (the B’nai B’rith man of the year) who tried to suppress Fr. Feeney from teaching Dogma, boasted of never converting one person to the Church.

thanks

 

[SemperFidelis]

So, your ‘allegiance’ to the Church requires you to reject separation of Church and State?

Uh, if you believe in the infallibility of the constant and authoritative teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, then yeah.

So, the Protestants would have it all over us, forcing our government to become a theocracy, or, that we Roman Catholics form a political allegiance to the Vatican?

The Church doesn’t require a Catholic theocracy. The rejection of seperation of Church and state doesn’t mean that a Catholic theocracy is required. This is a non sequitur. It is desired but not required. Pope Leo XIII stated that a Catholic can believe a democratic form of government is best and still reject seperation of Church and state as “a pertinacious error.” It seems someone with a theology degree needs an education. Here ya go:

seattlecatholic.com/a050615.html

I thought we resolved all of these issues in 1789.

1789 was a victory for Masonic ideals and liberal secularism, not for the Catholic Church. Common sense can tell you that. The French Revolution has been condemned many times by the hierarchy of the Church. Read up on the errors of Abbe Felicite de Lamennais if you want proof.

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

I thought we resolved all of these issues in 1789.

No, I thought it was “resolved” in 1965.

This is exactly what one of the liberal Cardinals (Cardinal Suenens) said: “This Council is the French Revolution of the Church.”

mgrfin thinks the French Revolution was good? Amazing.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

I have no problem rejecting the pope demanding that we reject separation of church and state. It is not an matter of an infallible dogma.

You say we can reject it “for a time”: then the matter can’t be a question of “dogma for a time”. There is no intermediate rejection of a dogma.

It is not a matter of defined doctrine.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUAS PRIMAS is a powerful encyclical.

Powerful, but not infallible. It is not the reason why the world is in a sad condition.

You must live in a theocracy.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

No, I thought it was “resolved” in 1965.

This is exactly what one of the liberal Cardinals (Cardinal Suenens) said: “This Council is the French Revolution of the Church.”

mgrfin thinks the French Revolution was good? Amazing.

SFD

I never said that. I never even hinted that. Trying to put those words in my mouth shows what kind of low person you are.

But Archbishop Lefebreve did. He was a monacharist, besides supporting Fascists like Mussolini, the Petain government in France, upheld the Nazis, hated the Jews, and a few other fascists in power during the 30’s, and 40’s.

peace

 

[SFD]

Powerful, but not infallible. It is not the reason why the world is in a sad condition.

You must live in a theocracy.

peace

Condemnations found in Papal encyclicals are infallible statements.

 

[DustinsDad]

I have no problem rejecting the pope demanding that we reject separation of church and state…

Silly me - and I thought someone said they closed the cafeteria - go figure. Your response is not the least bit surprising.

You say we can reject it “for a time”

No I didn’t. :tsktsk:

I said the evil of Church/state separation is being tolerated presently - seems there is currently no peaceful or pratical way of defeating this tragic situation aside from prayer and education.

Not much of either is being done from the looks of it.

…It is not a matter of defined doctrine.

If you can tell me the difference between schism, heresy, and apostasy I’ll take the time to consider this statement for at least 30 seconds.

If you can tell me what calumny is - I’ll consider it for at least 60,



DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Condemnations found in Papal encyclicals are infallible statements.

Come on - they changed that at VII don’t you know. Also, if you’ve been listening closely, you would have learned that we get to pick and choose which encyclicals we like and which ones we can ignore. The heroes of our antagonist have shown us that much.

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

Silly me - and I thought someone said they closed the cafeteria - go figure. Your response is not the least bit surprising.

No I didn’t. :tsktsk:

I said the evil of Church/state separation is being tolerated presently - seems there is currently no peaceful or pratical way of defeating this tragic situation aside from prayer and education.

Not much of either is being done from the looks of it.

If you can tell me the difference between schism, heresy, and apostasy I’ll take the time to consider this statement for at least 30 seconds.

If you can tell me what calumny is - I’ll consider it for at least 60,



DustinsDad

Jack Kennedy denied the requirement of a church/state connection. What was good enough for Jack was good enough for me.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Silly me - and I thought someone said they closed the cafeteria - go figure. Your response is not the least bit surprising.

No I didn’t.

I said the evil of Church/state separation is being tolerated presently - seems there is currently no peaceful or pratical way of defeating this tragic situation aside from prayer and education.

Not much of either is being done from the looks of it.

If you can tell me the difference between schism, heresy, and apostasy I’ll take the time to consider this statement for at least 30 seconds.

If you can tell me what calumny is - I’ll consider it for at least 60,

DustinsDad

What does calumny have to do with anything here?

peace

 

[stmaria]

Jack Kennedy denied the requirement of a church/state connection. What was good enough for Jack was good enough for me.

peace

You’re going to hand your hat on a liberal Catholic?
It is so obvious that the Traditional teaching of the Church is that it cannot be separated from the State. The Church has made the decision to suppress this teaching for the ‘common good’.
I would love to live in a Catholic state where all of the laws were based on the beliefs of the divinely revealed religion.

Why do you say *Quanta Cura *is not infallible?
Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura”papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned. "

*LIBERTAS *
Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest…, justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness –

Vehemnter vos pius X
3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies…Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Jack Kennedy denied the requirement of a church/state connection. What was good enough for Jack was good enough for me.

peace

Wow. You take the side of a horrible Catholic who is in no way in a position to dictate Dogma over the writings of many Popes. This is cafeteria Catholicism my friend, pure and simple.

 

[TMC]

Jack Kennedy denied the requirement of a church/state connection. What was good enough for Jack was good enough for me.

peace

Wow. You take the side of a horrible Catholic who is in no way in a position to dictate Dogma over the writings of many Popes. This is cafeteria Catholicism my friend, pure and simple.

He is in pretty good company:

At the same time it must be said that it is precisely this separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority, the new dualism that this contains, that represents the origin and the permanent foundation of the western idea of freedom. From now on there were two societies related to each other but not identical with each other, neither of which had this character of totality. The state is no longer itself the bearer of a religious authority that reaches into the ultimate depths of conscience, but for its moral basis refers beyond itself to another community. This community in its turn, the Church, understands itself as a final moral authority which however depends on voluntary adherence and is entitled only to spiritual but not to civil penalties, precisely because it does not have the status the state has of being accepted by all as something given in advance.

Thus each of these communities is circumscribed in its radius, and on the balance of this relation depends freedom. This is not in any way to dispute the fact that this balance has often enough been disturbed, that in the middle ages and in the early modern period things often reached the point of Church and state in fact blending into one another in a way that falsified the faith’s claim to truth and turned it into a compulsion so that it became a caricature of what was really intended. But even in the darkest periods the pattern of freedom presented in the fundamental evidences of the faith remained an authority which could be appealed to against the blending together of civil society and the community of faith, an authority to which the conscience could refer and from which the impulse towards the dissolution of total authority could emerge.

** From “Theology and the Church’s Political Stance” by Cardinal Ratzinger, 1988**

The Church should always strive to exert moral influence on society, including the State. But the Church and the State should remain seperate.

 

[SFD]

The Church should always strive to exert moral influence on society, including the State. But the Church and the State should remain seperate.

The condemnatory statements in a Papal Bull or Encyclical are infallible definitions.
Quanta Cura:

Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned. "

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #55. The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.(12)

(12) The Allocution, “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Your statement above is condemned. That should scare both you and Cardinal Ratzinger.

SFD

 

[catharina]

The condemnatory statements in a Papal Bull or Encyclical are infallible definitions.

(12) The Allocution, “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Your statement above is condemned. That should scare both you and Cardinal Ratzinger.

SFD

That one, by implication, condemns the Holy Father is more firghtening.

 

[stmaria]

That one, by implication, condemns the Holy Father is more firghtening.

His beliefs on Church and State were as a theologian not as Pope. No one can deny that the teaching of the Church is the following

*VEHEMENTER NOS *
Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error… Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State"

Pope Leo XIII Libertas “Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest”

The Church has made the decision to tolerate the separation of Church and State.

1. Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion. "

Who can deny that a perversion of morals have been introduced into society that are contrary to Divine Law?

 

[mgrfin]

The condemnatory statements in a Papal Bull or Encyclical are infallible definitions.

(12) The Allocution, “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Your statement above is condemned. That should scare both you and Cardinal Ratzinger.

SFD

The Syllabus is not a defide document. It is from a different time and different place.

Our government gives us the right to have separation of church and state. Most countries have such separation. Even in Italy.

Maybe the Sedevacantists should say Benedict XVI is in a state of heresy, and is now outside the Church, and he is pope no more.

After all, Sedevacantists are self-appointed disciplinarians of the whole church. Wonder what Canon of the Code their power is derived from?

Let’s resurrect Lefebre and make him pope. We need more fascists in our world.

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3327698]The Syllabus is not a defide document. It is from a different time and different place.

Are you saying that as the world changes, religion should also change?

Our government gives us the right to have separation of church and state. Most countries have such separation. Even in Italy

.
Our goverment? Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution.

Do you agree or disagree with the following?

." It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power"

 

[mgrfin]

Our goverment? Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution.

Really, have you read the Constitution?

You don’t have to read very far:

IT IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Please send me an apology by return post.

thanks