what am i supposed to tell people if they ask about No salvation outside the Church?

[LittleSoldier]

Do you believe there is a hell? If so, is God not worthy of love because He is also just?

Yes, I believe there is a hell. Where did I ever say anything that would lead you to ask me if God is not worthy of love? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mathew 7:14 says few are saved. Is God unjust?

What are you talking about?

 

[ncjohn]

Evidently you do need to be lectured by me. The same Church that excommunicated Fr. Feeney has now admitted his orders into full communion with the Church w/o having to recant anything. You may not understand why, you may not like it - but it is what it is and anyone who says otherwise, as you continue to do, are going against the Church. Where does that put you? It puts you in the same boat that Fr. Feeney originally found himself in; disobedient to lawful Church authority. Irony of ironies - you may want to think about that.

We should be happy when someone or a group of people are admitted back into the Church. It reminds me of the parable of the prodigal son - the older son resenting his younger brother being accepted back into the family. But in this case the readmittance of Fr. Feeney’s orders w/o having to recant clearly exposes the bureacratic elements involved in the prior dealings with him leading up to his excommunication. He was clearly dealt with unjustly; not even being told who his accusers were or what were the accusations which was required by canon law. Even secular, godless, courts allow this basic right of knowing your accusers and what is being brought against you. I think readmitting SBC is a quiet admission of fault.

…and for what it’s worth I’m not a “Feeneyite.” I’m of the same opinion as this good Priest of the FSSP:

audiosancto.org/sermon/20091115-Salvation-is-Only-in-the-Catholic-Church.html

End of lecture.

Ok, let’s try this a different way.

1–Do you continue to deny, as you did in your previous post, that the condemnation was issued by the Holy See considering the content of the letters has been posted?

2–Do you agree that Canon Law states that for an excommunication to be lifted that recantation must take place?

A simple yes or no is all that is needed to answer these.

As to me being in the same boat with Feeney, I would humbly beg to differ. I am following the explicit teaching of the Church and its statement of what it means by that teaching. I have done nothing beyond that but bring out facts relative to excommunication and the canon law requirements for lifting one, without making any judgments about anyone.

I have no particular cares about whether he was or wasn’t reconciled or whether his orders are or aren’t actually in communion. It would seem likely that the Vatican has ways of lifting excommunications without complying with the explicit canons since it was just recently done with the SSPX, though those were admittedly “simply” about obedience for the most part. I would not expect however that one should take that as evidence that they can just blindly adopt a position that has in fact been condemned by the Church. And by the way all of the rest of your post might make for great speculation but isn’t worth anything beyond that.

So agan, keep your insults and your lectures to yourself please.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier,

You are a conflicted individual:

I am not a conflicted individual. My two statements are not contradictory. There is something very basic here that you appear not to understand.

The Church is the Body of Christ (Collosians 1:24). Christ died for our sins. He died so that all could reach heaven. Not just Catholics, but everyone. But we all need Christ (as the Church) to reach heaven.

A baptised non-Catholic may reach heaven, but only because of the presence of the Church.

Try looking at it this way. There is a raging river which we must all cross in order to reach heaven. A non-Catholic must jump into the river and fight his way across. He runs the risk of drowning. He runs the risk of being carried downstream.

The Catholic crosses the sturdy bridge that spans the river.

Both may reach heaven, but the Catholic has a much easier time accomplishing this task, as being a member of the Church gives him access to the Eucharist and the other Sacraments, whereas the non-Catholic may only have been baptised.

Does this make any sense to you?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Evidently you do need to be lectured by me. The same Church that excommunicated Fr. Feeney has now admitted his orders into full communion with the Church w/o having to recant anything. You may not understand why, you may not like it - but it is what it is and anyone who says otherwise, as you continue to do, are going against the Church. Where does that put you? It puts you in the same boat that Fr. Feeney originally found himself in; disobedient to lawful Church authority. Irony of ironies - you may want to think about that.

We should be happy when someone or a group of people are admitted back into the Church. It reminds me of the parable of the prodigal son - the older son resenting his younger brother being accepted back into the family. But in this case the readmittance of Fr. Feeney’s orders w/o having to recant clearly exposes the bureacratic elements involved in the prior dealings with him leading up to his excommunication. He was clearly dealt with unjustly; not even being told who his accusers were or what were the accusations which was required by canon law. Even secular, godless, courts allow this basic right of knowing your accusers and what is being brought against you. I think readmitting SBC is a quiet admission of fault.

…and for what it’s worth I’m not a “Feeneyite.” I’m of the same opinion as this good Priest of the FSSP:

audiosancto.org/sermon/20091115-Salvation-is-Only-in-the-Catholic-Church.html

End of lecture.

Nobody needs to be “lectured” by you. Your “lecture” is full of subjective opinions, not one of which is backed up by anything other than your opinion. Your tone is condescending and not charitable and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Feeneyism is a heresy. If you disagree, you should really let CAF know that it is wrong. I’ve already posted the link but here it is again:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

 

[sawman]

i have been angry @ God b4… very angry at certain times in my life… and if you knw what was going on, you would probably understand why i was so angry…

but even so… i never questioned … when i heard that only few are saved… God’s perfect justice…

i don’t get it when people get angry at God when they hear that few are saved… angry enough to abandon the Church… They should direct their anger at the people who choose to go away from Him…living their lives doing their own worldly thing rather t han doing what HE wants…

the fact (and it seems to be a fact… but in any case the IDEA) that many end up in Hell… that even MOST end up in Hell… does not take away from God being, as 1 Jn 4 says “love”…

all it says is that people are sinful and don’t love God enough… and even the ones who DO love him… well, sometimes it is just an affection they FEEL for Him… not real love… because when there is true love of God, there is love of His commandmnets… love of HIS ways… and when there is love of his comandments there is an effort to conform to them… We fail right and left… but those who try end up at least in Purg…

i see all around me people violating God’s 2nd commandmnet… to love others as yourself… I see so little love anymore… getting particularly bad in the last several yrs… maybe partly cuz we have a president who has no apparent love for the unborn humans… but i digress…

people just love themsleves…

why is it so surprising to hear that few are saved? I see nothing but evil everywhere i look… even within, of course… but i am working on that… i have no problem with God “sending” me to Purgtory for many, many yrs when i die… I will be there exactly as long as i need to be…

I don’t feel i am going to Hell but i guess one never really knows…

i do know one thing… if i end up there it will be MY fault alone…

the souls in Hell hate God… they are only doing what they have done on Earth…

Pray for those who are on their way to Hell… offer up Masses for them… the most powerful prayer of all… Also Mary says to offer up sacrifices for them…

I agree with your post more than most of the other posts on this thread.
“work out your salvation in fear and trembling”
I fear the loss of heaven because I know my own wicked inclinations too well. I am not afraid now at this point in my life, but I know how bad I’ve been in the past. I am a weak person.
To go to hell is too easy.
Peace, Tom

 

[chypmonk]

I find the term “Feeneyite” to be a derogatory name. I do not follow Fr. Feeney nor do I think he was accurate is his understanding of BoD ( which he never denied only adjusted,ie. it isn’t salvific). I also found him to be a disagreeable personality after the controversy.

I prefer to be called an EENSer because I follow the dogma not Fr. Feeney

I deny BoD as a Apostolic Teaching. Baptism is absolutely necessary to be saved. If Unam Sanctam says that “there is no remission of sin outside the Church” and a catechumen is outside the Church until he receives water baptism, I don’t see how he can be in a state of justification before receiving the water.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
“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… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

 

[chypmonk]

Nobody needs to be “lectured” by you. Your “lecture” is full of subjective opinions, not one of which is backed up by anything other than your opinion. Your tone is condescending and not charitable and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Feeneyism is a heresy. If you disagree, you should really let CAF know that it is wrong. I’ve already posted the link but here it is again:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

this article you link to was corrected :
catholicvox.blogspot.com/search/label/EENS%20defense%20against%20Fr.%20Ryland

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Your conclusion as to why “Father” Frank Pavone and the FSSP are in full communion is not logical.

premise 1: Fr. Pavone and the FSSP host retreats at the Feeneyite retreat center.
conclusion: Ergo, they are in full communion.

Does that make sense? No, it does not.

I didn’t base my conclusion upon the actions of anyone other than the hierarchy of the Church. My point was that if you’re not willing to listen to the Vatican, SBC’s local Bishop, myself or anyone else then hopefully you could understand it by seeing how other well known personages such as Fr. Frank Pavone has no issues with SBC because he clearly understands they’re in full communion. Same for FSSP and a host of others.

You wouldn’t find faithful Catholic Priests such as Fr. Pavone or the Priests of the FSSP at a sedevacantist retreat center would you? It would be scandalous.

What difference does it make if “Father” Pavone hosts retreats at the “Feeneyite” retreat center? What makes you think he and his followers are in full communion? The members of “Catholics for Choice” probably host retreats too, probably run by priests. Are they in full communion? What about those who believe that women should have the option of becoming priests and teach this as Church dogma? Are they in full communion? Should we now say that the Church teaches that abortion is fine and “good Catholics use condoms” and women should be allowed to become priests?

Wow! Fr. Pavone’s loyalty is questioned and likened to dissident heretics…

You speak of another “choosing to remain in ignorance.” You are the one who is ignorant and no matter how angry you become it does not change the fact that Feeneyism is a heresy (that, unfortunately, refuses to die).

So, let me ask you this… what would it take from the Church to convince you that SBC is in full communion and good standing with the Catholic Church? We already know that letters from the Vatican are no good - as well as letters from the local Bishop. So, I’m curious what would satisfy you?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

It wasn’t an infallible teaching. It was mistakenly thought as an infallible teaching by many. I went to Catholic school then, too.

You’d do well to acquaint yourself with the documents of V2 and the CCC if you’re not going to listen to past magisterial councils and documents.

I am not the one who said Feeney was a heretic; Feeneyism is a heresy and if you state that you agree with it, you are leading people away from Truth.

Hmmm… kinda like saying Arius isn’t a heretic but Arianism is…

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Yes, I believe there is a hell. Where did I ever say anything that would lead you to ask me if God is not worthy of love? I have no idea what you are talking about.

I’ll play your game only once more…

You said, “It’s not true that those who are not Catholic are damned to hell and why anyone would believe that a loving God would allow such a travesty is beyond me.” which begs the question , “do you believe that a loving God would send anyone to hell?” or “do you believe in hell at all?”

What are you talking about?

You tell me…

Do you believe what Christ said in Mathew 7:14?

 

[The_Reginator]

Can we lay aside Fr. Feeney and personal arguments for a time?

I’m really interested in the question “what am i supposed to tell people if they ask about No salvation outside the Church?”

How exactly does the Church interpret “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” when applied to God-fearing faithful Christians who cannot (for whatever reason) accept the Church in full. (I’m thinking about all the faithful who attend other ecclesial communities.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

this article you link to was corrected :
catholicvox.blogspot.com/search/label/EENS%20defense%20against%20Fr.%20Ryland

It was not “corrected.” Somebody presented a rebuttal; that is all. There is a big difference.

Why don’t you let CAF know? I’m sure they would be interested in knowing that they are supposedly, according to some people, giving out false information. Isn’t it kind of your responsibility to make sure that people know the truth?

I got the majority of my information regarding Fr. Feeney from CAF. If they are lying or mistaken, don’t you think they are leading people away from the Church? Can you sit by and not do anything about this?

Why isn’t the rebuttal posted on CAF? I checked my link and there is absolutely no footnote or anything stating that the information was faulty and has been corrected. It doesn’t even state there is a rebuttal!

BTW, just to make my position clear, Feeneyism is a heresy. Feeney’s words were condemned and Feeney was excommunicated for his refusal to go to the Vatican as ordered. I’m happy to know he was reconciled with the Church before his death but that doesn’t change the fact that he was excommunicated or that he taught a heresy.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Ok, let’s try this a different way.

1–Do you continue to deny, as you did in your previous post, that the condemnation was issued by the Holy See considering the content of the letters has been posted?

2–Do you agree that Canon Law states that for an excommunication to be lifted that recantation must take place?

1. No, I don’t deny it and I admit my response was a little reckless. Now let me rephrase - his excommunication was one based upon discipline and not doctrine.
2. I don’t agree because I don’t know what canon law says about lifting excommunications. Maybe you could post the relevant canons. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that if an excommunication was unjust in the first place there is no need for recanting anything. Have you considered that may be the case?

Now, all this nonsense that you and littlesoldier are saying about SBC not being in full communion despite what Rome and the Bishop has said is placing yourself in a position of authority over and above the Pope himself. The fact that SBC is allowed to go on teaching the strict interpretation of EENS shows that both opinions are currently acceptable and is open to debate precisely as the letter I linked to indicates. There is also news that the sole remaining branch of SBC (in New Hampshire) not recognized by the Church is coming back into full communion as well - w/o retracting anything - like the others.

It’s amazing that somehow EENS gets linked solely to Fr. Feeney (thanks to the excommunication) when many Popes, Doctors of the Church, Fathers, Saints etc. held the same views.

I answered yours - now time for your questions:

1. Was Saint Francis Xavier a heretic for holding that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church?
2. Do you think we maintained the original meaning of the Dogma EENS as Pope Eugene IV penned it during the Council of Florence in the Bull Cantate Domino? If he came back today do you think he would feel at home with the current mindset?

So agan, keep your insults and your lectures to yourself please.

I wasn’t insulting and I apologize if I came across that way.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

It wasn’t an infallible teaching. It was mistakenly thought as an infallible teaching by many. I went to Catholic school then, too.

LittleSoldier, just to point out that you’re wrong on that, among other things, I’m going to quote from the letter of the Holy Office that YOU wanted me to read…

"We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’ll play your game only once more…

You said, “It’s not true that those who are not Catholic are damned to hell and why anyone would believe that a loving God would allow such a travesty is beyond me.” which begs the question , “do you believe that a loving God would send anyone to hell?” or “do you believe in hell at all?”

I am not playing a game. My only wish is to follow the Lord. I don’t fool around with His words and His teachings. My love for Him transcends everything else in my life. I would gladly give my life for Him. It does not beg the question. You obviously don’t understand what I have been posting. My point about God allowing a travesty such as committing to hell all those who are not members of the Catholic Church stands by itself. Non-Catholics can be saved and they do not have to be members of the Catholic Church to be saved. Jesus died for everyone, not just Catholics. Absolutely everyone. What about all the people who died before Jesus completed his sacrifice? They weren’t Catholic. Were they saved? What about the thief on the cross? Was he Catholic? He was saved.

Why limit the love of God as shown through redemption to only a select few who are blessed with a gift of belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

God does not “send” people to hell. People send themselves to hell. Through the gift of free will they make it clear that they do not want to be with God. Their actions make it clear. A Catholic can be a goat and a non-Catholic can be a sheep. Both still need the Catholic Church. Nobody can find redemption except through the Catholic Church but this doesn’t mean that everyone who is saved has to be a member of the Catholic Church.

For a poor analogy, take the Coast Guard. I don’t work for the Coast Guard, I don’t pay taxes which support the Coast Guard (as far as I know). I’m not a member of the Coast Guard. If I’m on a boat which begins taking on water and the captain sends a Mayday, does the Coast Guard rescue me? Of course. I need the Coast Guard at that time and am rescued by the Coast Guard at that time, even though I’m not a member of the Coast Guard.

If I’m not a member of the Catholic Church and I wish to go to heaven, I can’t go without the presence of the Catholic Church. It would be ideal if I were a member of the Church and if i know the Church is the One True Church and turn my back on her I am in trouble. But if I am not Catholic and do not know that the Church is the One True Church I can still go to heaven. The Church is still necessary for my redemption.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." [Matthew 25:31-46]

You tell me…

Do you believe what Christ said in Mathew 7:14?

"Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets. "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. [Matthew 7:12-14, NAB]

Of course I believe this is true. This is Holy Scripture. It doesn’t say that only Catholics can go to heaven.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier, just to point out that you’re wrong on that, among other things, I’m going to quote from the letter of the Holy Office that YOU wanted me to read…

As I have stated several times now, the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. I have never disagreed with that. There is no salvation outside the Church. I absolutely agree! It is because of the Catholic Church that people are saved.

But that doesn’t mean that a person has to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved! If you can’t see this I can do no more for you.

I’m not going to bang my head against a wall over and over to try to get an obviously angry person to try to understand that the sentence “There is no salvation outside the Church” does not necessarily mean that one must be a member of the Church in order to be saved. All that sentence states is that the Church is necessary for salvation. It says nothing about membership in the Church.

I’ve given you links, I’ve given you the link to CAF’s article. I’ve done what I can. I hope you can understand some day. But I don’t think you are willing to try to understand. You have accused me of playing a game. This is dead serious to me. If you think I’m playing a game you aren’t ready to understand.

I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Can we lay aside Fr. Feeney and personal arguments for a time?

I’m really interested in the question “what am i supposed to tell people if they ask about No salvation outside the Church?”

How exactly does the Church interpret “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” when applied to God-fearing faithful Christians who cannot (for whatever reason) accept the Church in full. (I’m thinking about all the faithful who attend other ecclesial communities.)

See the Catechism para 846-848

 

[diggerdomer]

You’d do well to acquaint yourself with the documents of V2 and the CCC if you’re not going to listen to past magisterial councils and documents.

But it wasn’t an infallible teaching. Obviously, as the teaching changed.

 

[Layman]

Simple.

The Catholic Church contains the Tradition, the Bible, the Apostolic Succession. the writings of the Saints and the Sacraments. Everything a weak, ignorant man needs to get to Heaven is in there. And, Protestants, you don’t even need to be able to read.

Are you going to gamble the fate of your immortal soul on your own opinions and those of Pastor Chad Of The Made-Up-Name Church?

 

[Sirach2]

This subject has been exhausted with myriads of links and arguments, and I am not going to debate any further here. The point that has been wrongly argued by proponents of Fr. Feeney is that he was simply disobedient, and not that he was in error. I haven’t seen this posted, which clearly shows the very reason for his excommunication was due to disobedience in failing to retract his error.

In April of 1949, Dr. Maluf and three other professors, all members of the St. Benedict Center, were expelled from the Jesuit house in Boston for having taught an erroneous doctrine. They claimed that all those who were not explicitly members of the visible Church were damned, and accused all those who denied this of being heretics.
In order to explain the reasons to the press, the Very Reverend William L. Keheler, S.J., President of Boston College, declared: “They persisted in teaching, both in and outside the classroom, doctrines which contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas that fostered fanaticism and intolerance.”

The affair became a scandal when on April 17, 1949, Father Leonard Feeney publicly undertook the defense of these professors and their doctrine.
The following day, Richard J. Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, without any warning to the interested parties, declared to the press that Father Leonard Feeney was suspended a divinis, in the archdiocese and the St. Benedict’s Center was placed under interdict.
Considering this double sanction to be against canon law, Father Feeney appealed to Rome. From then on, there was open war bewteen the priest and local authorities.

On the 8th of August, 1949, Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, Secretary of the Holy Office, wrote to the Archbishop of Boston and sent him a Declaration of this Holy Office to be conveyed to Father Feeney, which made clear the sense in which one should understand the doctrine that “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Father Feeney refused to adhere to this declaration and wrote with regard to the matter that “it can be considered as having established a two-sided policy in order to propagate error.”

On October 28, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order.
Things remained unchanged until September 14, 1952. At this point, the Archbishop of Boston demanded that Father Feeney retract his false interpretation and make an “explicit profession of submission” to the Roman Declaration within one month or suffer the penalty of being reduced to the state of a layman.

On September 24, 1952, a letter was sent from the St. Benedict Center to Pius XII, accusing the Archbishop of Boston of heresy.
In October of 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo summoned Father Feeney to present himself in Rome for a hearing by the Holy Office. Father Feeney accepted on condition that they told him beforehand what the charges against him were. Not receiving any response, he did not comply.

On February 16, 1953, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis announced the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney. The following is an official translation of the Decree:
"Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.

"On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record.
“Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. Marius Crovini, notary.”

Since then, and in spite of the sanction of the Holy See, Father Feeney has made the St. Benedict Center the headquarters of a Society of about one hundred individuals who call themselves the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and who have undertaken to propagate this condemned doctrine about the salvation of non-Catholics, while accusing the Archbishop of Boston and all who agree with his interpretation of being heretics.
http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html