Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

I’m not. I don’t belong to the SSPX. Never have go to one of their Masses. I go to the TLM celebrated by the FSSP. Approved by my Diocese.

No need to use caps. It makes you look CRAZY!
I understand the Archbishop’s fears.You have to look at his actions in context of the years 1965-1988.

Caps, no caps. I still have not received a response.

I really have no interest in reading up on Archbishop Lefebre. Why would I spend my time on such a venture?

peace

 

[stmaria]

I’m sure.

Here is the link:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Been there done that years ago.

41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear **in a new light: **The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

You said all the doctrinal condemnations still stand. Not true.

 

[mgrfin]

stmaria:
I know. Been there done that too.

They would like us to lift our condemnations like they did. Not going to happen. I was referring to just ours. I don’t believe I have ever read the condemnations of the Lutheran Confessions.

I was watching the hockey game, so I go distracted.

That’s how I am.

peace

peace

 

[SFD]

Do you have an issue with my defense of Fr. Feeney’s position?

GerardP,

Can you show us where Fr. Feeney’s position included the denial of the Catholic doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

SFD

 

[SemperFidelis]

I really have no interest in reading up on Archbishop Lefebre. Why would I spend my time on such a venture?

You probably should as it would make you look less foolish in situations like this. You wouldn’t be making ridiculously absurd statements like “Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are apostates” either. While you’re at it you should probably try looking up the definition of apostate too.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP,

Can you show us where Fr. Feeney’s position included the denial of the Catholic doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

SFD

Calling them “Catholic doctrines” vs. speculations is a point of disagreement between us.

But, Fr. Feeney wrote in “Bread of Life”:

As I have explained to you many times, neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.

Later on Fr. Feeney also wrote:

Q. What. does “Baptism of Desire” mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.

Q. Can “Baptism of Desire” save you?
A. Never.

Q. Could “Baptism of Desire” save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.

Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.

Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.

 

[stmaria]

They would like us to lift our condemnations like they did. Not going to happen.

So how do you intrepret this?

7…, this **Joint Declaration **rests on the conviction that in overcoming the earlier controversial questions and doctrinal condemnations, the churches neither take the condemnations lightly nor do they disavow their own past. On the contrary, this Declaration is shaped by the conviction that in their respective histories our churches have come to new insights. Developments have taken place which not only make possible, but also require the churches to examine the divisive questions and condemnations and see them in a new light.

13.Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical **message of justification **were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that **this Joint Declaration **is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century **do not apply **to today’s partner.

41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: **The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. **The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

It says, "The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent"
What teachings of the Luthern church are presented in this Declaration and therfore do not fall under the condemantions of Trent?

Here is one teaching presented.

26.According to Lutheran understanding, **God justifies sinners in faith alone **(sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him. God himself effects faith as he brings forth such trust by his creative word. Because God’s act is a new creation, it affects all dimensions of the person and leads to a life in hope and love. In the doctrine of “justification by faith alone,” a distinction but not a separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one’s way of life that necessarily follows from justification and without which faith does not exist. Thereby the basis is indicated from which the renewal of life proceeds, for it comes forth from the love of God imparted to the person in justification. Justification and renewal are joined in Christ, who is present in faith. "

How am I misreading this? It clearly says the Luthern teachings **in this declaration **do not fall under the condemnations ofTrent.
The Luthern teaching of Justification by Faith alone is in this declaration. Therefore it no longer is condemned by Trent. How else can this be intrepreted?

 

[mgrfin]

You probably should as it would make you look less foolish in situations like this. You wouldn’t be making ridiculously absurd statements like “Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are apostates” either. While you’re at it you should probably try looking up the definition of apostate too.

Okay, please let us have your credentials.

Are you a Feeneyite?
Are you a follower of Lefebvre?
Are you SFD?

peace

 

[SFD]

Calling them “Catholic doctrines” vs. speculations is a point of disagreement between us.

Are you saying they are a result of spectulative theology?

GerardP:

But, Fr. Feeney wrote in “Bread of Life”:

As I have explained to you many times, neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.

And I don’t see anything unorthodox in the above. It agrees with what is found in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott as well…I mention Ott because many people have it in English.

And I don’t see any conflict with St. Alphonsus…now again, here is St. Alphonsus:

Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

Concerning Baptism

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguishedinto Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God bycontrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the[baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”]because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero nonbaptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by asstrict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Churchvenerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious.In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament*, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only preparedhim for the coming of Christ.

Later on Fr. Feeney also wrote:

If you don’t mind…what is the source for this?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

How am I misreading this? It clearly says the Luthern teachings **in this declaration **do not fall under the condemnations ofTrent.
The Luthern teaching of Justification by Faith alone is in this declaration. Therefore it no longer is condemned by Trent. How else can this be intrepreted?

Your understanding is not correct. I think you know that. What they and we refer to “Justification by faith alone’ is condemned by the Council of Trent. It was and it is still condemned.

Canon 9 “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.”

This was the cornerstone of Luther’s new religion. All of the Canons of Trent, all 33 are still in effect. We say that, as do the Lutherans.

Let me quote to you what the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church had to say.

“Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

Q. I would like to understand the main problem your church body has with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (signed October 31 by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church). Is it the fact that it implies that we are saved as a result of both faith and works?

A. Yes, you are on the right track here. The recently signed Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does not signal a change in the Roman Catholic church, but rather, a willingness on the part of the Lutherans who signed it to allow Rome’s doctrine of justification to stand as a valid interpretation of what the Bible teaches us about justification. This is something that the Lutheran church has never done before, and in fact, it is a great tragedy and a profoundly sad moment in the history of Lutheranism

The link to this site is as follows:
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2212

You have an excellent theology education. I am sure you understand what is being said. And reading further, you will see that the Lutherans aren’t very happy. I think they feel they they were led on, and in the end, the Vatican pulled it all back.

That is how you have to deal with documents from General Councils of the Church. The Church will not go back on them. Specially true of Vatican II and the documents like LG, and UR, etc. They are part of the living Deposit of Faith.
peace

peace

 

[mgrfin]

./QUOTE

Hey, you are out to make me look foolish, regardless of what I read. Why would I read someone like Feeney? His theology on the Sacraments is probably heretical. He has been excommunicated, and didn’t have the good sense to come out of the cold before he died. Likewise Lefebvre.

I watched hockey tonight, and that had more of a good effect on my salvation than anything I could read of a Schismatic/Heretic like Feeney. Same is true of Lefebvre.

You don’t really believe that they have anything to say to me that will be for my everlasting salvation. I could just as much read Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Zwingli, and all of the others who led their followers astray.

Im just not interested. More is to be gained by me praying for these schismatics/heretics, which I will do tonight.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Calling them “Catholic doctrines” vs. speculations is a point of disagreement between us.

But, Fr. Feeney wrote in “Bread of Life”:

As I have explained to you many times, neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.:

Later on Fr. Feeney also wrote

Quote:
“Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.”
UnQuote

Sounds like heresy to me.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Luther evolved a theory which is a combination of pessimism and easy optimism. By the sin of Adam, our nature has become essentially evil and ever remain evil. It is a mass of corruption, and even the redeeming blood of Jesus does not cleanse it or heal it. He went so far as to say that all our actions are evil, even those which we look upon as virtuous . This is the pessism of his system.

Now comes the easy optimism. Luther taught that we must have complete confidence that the merits of Jesus Christ are actually applied to us: our sins are ignored by God. Our souls remain completely hideous in themselves, but God ‘covers’ them over with the merits of Christ so that these are looked upon by Him as being ours. Our sins are not ‘imputed’ to us, but the merits of Christ are. “Simul justus et peccator”. (Justified but a sinner at the same time)

This is the famous Justification by Faith. For the Lutheran, Justification doesn’t mean an inner change by which our soul becomes a sacred thing, but a mere external non-imputation of sins. Faith for him does not mean an assent to truths divinely revealed, but a personal persuasion that the merits of Christ have been applied to us. This faith, in the Lutheran sense, is the only thing that counts: good works are of no avail – indeed they are impossible, since all our actions are made evil from the evil source from which they spring.

A further conclusion of Lutheranism is that there can be no such thing as Merit

The Council of Trent drew up a direct response to the Protestant theory of Justification.

It said that we become just before God, not through a non-imputation of sin, but by an interior renovation of our soul which blots out sin. This is brought about by sanctifying grace, which is explained as a reality poured forth upon us, and inhering in us.

This is the overwhelming teaching of Scripture and of Christian writers from the beginning. There are numerous expressions used in Scripture which show that the state of grace involves a real interior change in the soul. Expressions such as ‘born again’, ‘regeneration’, ‘renovation’ and ‘new creature’. When St. Paul speaks of the ‘new man’ who is ‘created in justice and holiness of truth’, he is alluding to a marvelous change which is produced in us. The early Christian writers compared the water of baptism forming a new creature, bringing a new life to the soul. The Fathers of the Church extolled the glory of the soul which Christ has washed in his Blood. All this in direct contradiction to the awful teaching of Protestantism which would make the soul even of the just man a sinful thing, essentially corrupt and loathsome.

Sanctifying grace is a supernatural quality, a positive quality superadded to the soul. This brings us to the wonderful phrase of St. Peter (2Pet 1:4) who says that we are ‘partakers of the divine
nature’.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Part 2

Justification (continued)

It is not a figure of speech: we are really made partakers of the divine nature. St. Augustine says, “He descended that we might ascend, and whilst retaining his own divine nature, he partook of our human nature, that we, while keeping our own nature, might become partakers of his. “O felix culpa” – Oh happy fault. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel shows God touching Adam with his finger, and in touching us has transformed us into something like himself. For that purpose, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became man and gave us ‘power to be made sons of God”.

In Catholicism, we stress the fact, and rejoice in it that grace makes us truly sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Before Christ can sanctify us and make us sons of God, we must ‘receive’ him and believe in his name. St. Paul says that the just man lives by faith, and we are ‘children of God by faith in Christ Jesus’.

The Catholic doctrine is very different from the Protestant Doctrine. Luther held that faith alone brought Justification, to the exclusion of all good works. “Good works’ were impossible, according to his theory of the essential corruption of our nature. And his faith was not so much an intellectual assent to the divinity of Christ and the Redemption, as a personal persuasion that our sins are ‘covered over’ and no longer imputed to us.

We must not be confused by the importance Luther placed on accepting Christ as our redeemer with the vicious character of his theory which leads to the inevitable disregard to the moral law.

No man can have faith in Christ unless the grace of God first draw him. It is for man to accept or to reject this grace. If he accepts it, he is led on to make a true act of faith, that is, he is led by God to believe what has been divinely revealed. With this faith, he is led to hope in God and to love him, and to urn his heart away from sin. Thus, under the influence of actual grace, a soul is prepared for Justification. Hence, it is not a matter of faith only, but of faith which leads to hope and love, and genuine sorrow; yet, faith is the foundation of the whole process. All is now ready for incorporation in Christ, which will bring life to the soul.

It is a fundamental principle of Catholic theology that we can do nothing of ourselves towards salvation, and this is true of the growth in grace. We can correspond with grace; and by corresponding with grace we can increase the supernatural life which we already possess.
It is clear this is clear from the teaching of the NT.

Peter says (2Pet 3: 18) “Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”. Protestant Justification does not allow growth: our sins are either imputed to us or they are not. St. Peter’s passage and similar others are meaningless unless there be a supernatural life in which we go from virtue to virtue, are renewed from day to day, and thus become more and more justified. The fact is that we can grow in grace as the result of our own efforts, the question arises: How do our efforts bring about this increase? Our answer is by meriting an increase of grace that we are able to develop our supernatural life. Our efforts do not actually produce the increase, but God grants it as a reward. And with the increase of sanctifying grace there is a corresponding increase in the infused Virtues and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, all as a result of merit.

God alone gives grace and God alone increases it. The increase can be merited, and it is in this sense that with the help of God, our own actions can bring about the growth of the life of grace.
Remember, the increase in grace may be merited by us, but is not directly produced by us.

Protestants deny that there is such a thing as merit.

The Christian soul has it with his powers to increase the treasure of grace, which has been committed to him. He can pray for it, he can approach the sacraments with the knowledge that these are the divinely instituted means of advancing in grace, and he can exercise himself in good works.

peace

 

[GerardP]

Are you saying they are a result of spectulative theology?

Yes. Even Church Fathers that talk about the possibilities use terminology along the modern equivalent of “I suppose…” Just going on memory, I believe Augustine is often used as an example to show how he was not passing on what was handed to him but rather wrestling with a question under his own power.

If you don’t mind…what is the source for this?
SFD

It’s from the same chapter of “Bread of Life” by Fr. Feeney

catholicism.org/bread-chap7.html

 

[GerardP]

Later on Fr. Feeney also wrote

Quote:
“Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.”
UnQuote

Sounds like heresy to me.

peace

If Fr. Feeney quoted the Athanasian Creed, I think it would sound like heresy to you.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Okay, please let us have your credentials.

Are you a Feeneyite?
Are you a follower of Lefebvre?
Are you SFD?

peace

1. No
2. No
3. No

I am however, an admirer of the Archbishop who enjoy’s his works. Saying he is an apostate is both a complete misapplication of the word, and a complete misunderstanding of who he was. May God have mercy on you for throwing the term so loosely around (and wrongly at that). If you think the Archbishop was an apostate, then you don’t even come come close to knowing what an actual apostate is.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Hey, you are out to make me look foolish, regardless of what I read.

I don’t have to do anything. Reading this thread is enough to make that apparent.

Why would I read someone like Feeney? His theology on the Sacraments is probably heretical.

Because you can’t effectively refute it

if you haven’t read their works and don’t know where they’re coming from or don’t know a thing about them.

He has been excommunicated, and didn’t have the good sense to come out of the cold before he died. Likewise Lefebvre.

I am not a Feeneyite as already stated, but you clearly don’t know anything about Fr. Feeney. Before he died, Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication and he was allowed back into the Church. This is not recent news. In fact, it happened before I was born, but somehow I still know this.

 

[mgrfin]

If Fr. Feeney quoted the Athanasian Creed, I think it would sound like heresy to you.

That’s your answer?

It still sounds like heresy to me, even moreso now.

Your personal attacks are of little consequence. It just shows the narrowness of your mind, and the shallowness of your intellect, and the weakness of your charity.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I.

A Jesuit’s vow of obedience to the Holy Father is supposed to supersede any personal thoughts.

Feeney never retracted any of his errors before his death.

He was fortunate that absolution in his grave illness would lift the excommunication.

Too bad he was so proud and obstinate.

You attack like a mongrel. Are you sure you are a Christian?

peace