Was the strict interpretation of 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" that Fr. Leonard Feeney taught heretical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tridentinum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tridentinum said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Of course, since it denies the possibility of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. The Catechism of St. Pius X states:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Likewise, in the Roman Martyrology for April 12, we read of St. Victor:
Bracari, in Lusitania, sancti Victoris Martyris, qui, adhuc catechumenus, cum noluisset idolum adorare, et Christum Jesum magna constantia confessus fuisset, ideo, post multa tormenta, capite abscisso, meruit proprio sanguine baptizari.
which means,
At Braga, in Portugal, the holy Martyr Victor, who, while still a catechumen, when he refused to adore an idol and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, consequently, after many torments, being beheaded, merited to be baptized by his own blood.
Thus, if Fr. Feeney were right, Pius X was a heretic, and the Church has elevated saints to the altars who are actually damned to Hell. And if, rather, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are de fide, then Fr. Feeney’s position smacks of heresy and illegitimate private interpretation – which is exactly what the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office said in its 1949 letter condemning his errors.
 
Okay, thanks for the answers. I just read that he was excommunicated for disobedience, not because of heresy.
 
Tridentinum said:
Okay, thanks for the answers. I just read that he was excommunicated for disobedience, not because of heresy.
Click to expand...
If memory serves, the official declaration of excommunication turned on the simpler question of disobedience, but this does not mean that that his underlying positions were not, themselves, objectively heretical.
 
Here’s the heart of the issue:

“No salvation outside of the Church” is a truism. Everyone who finds salvation is obviously incorporated into Christ’s body, the Church.

The question is how?

Most people are incorporated into the Church through baptism and then a full sacramental life. Others, however, have been integrated by “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood.”

For example, if a catechumen dies before they are officially accepted into the Church through the sacraments, what happens? The Church teaches that they can be saved, because they desired baptism.

Some who have come to believe in Christ, but have not been able to seek full sacramental incorporation into the Church, have suffered martyrdom for Christ. This includes some early Roman saints, so clearly they were saved through baptism by blood.
 
Just playing devils advocate but consider the following scenario.

A man, raised and baptized Baptist. He has heard that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and being interested studies about it. After doing his studying he is convinced that the Catholic Church may indeed be the oldest Christian Church but it is not the true faith. He knowing rejects the concept of the Catholic Church being the one true Church in spite of having extensive knowledge about it, its practices and beliefs.

Salvation?
 
Mike30 said:
Just playing devils advocate but consider the following scenario.

A man, raised and baptized Baptist. He has heard that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and being interested studies about it. After doing his studying he is convinced that the Catholic Church may indeed be the oldest Christian Church but it is not the true faith. He knowing rejects the concept of the Catholic Church being the one true Church in spite of having extensive knowledge about it, its practices and beliefs.

Salvation?
Click to expand...
That’s a question better suited for the Apologetics forum, I should think. It has nothing to do with the particular errors of Fr. Feeney which are the topic of this thread.
 
Mike30 said:
Just playing devils advocate but consider the following scenario.

A man, raised and baptized Baptist. He has heard that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and being interested studies about it. After doing his studying he is convinced that the Catholic Church may indeed be the oldest Christian Church but it is not the true faith. He knowing rejects the concept of the Catholic Church being the one true Church in spite of having extensive knowledge about it, its practices and beliefs.

Salvation?
Click to expand...
Its really not up to us, is it? We have no way of knowing to what extent invincible ignorance covers individual cases. That is why we pray, and pray unceasingly, for the souls of the departed.
 
MarkThompson said:
That’s a question better suited for the Apologetics forum, I should think. It has nothing to do with the particular errors of Fr. Feeney which are the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
Still in all an interesting and I think a thought provoking question. And in all honesty if it had not been for this thread I would not have thought about it. Oh well, maybe the mods will agree and move it to the other forum.
 
Mike30 said:
Still in all an interesting and I think a thought provoking question. And in all honesty if it had not been for this thread I would not have thought about it. Oh well, maybe the mods will agree and move it to the other forum.
Click to expand...
Start a new thread with the question, it will be interesting to see the responses.

Thanks everyone for responding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top