R
ready
Guest
This is the answer to your question taken right out of the catechism. You needn’t look elsewhere.
what am i supposed to tell people if they ask about No salvation outside the Church?
- Status
N
ncjohn
Guest
True only to an extent. The Holy See commanded his presence based on the condemned teaching, as evidenced by the letter provided. Without that cause there is no command to appear and no excommunication. The disobedience is the final reason for the excommunication while the refusal to recant the condemned teaching was the proximal cause.
Both the current and 1917 canons were included in the article posted.
This is sheer speculation on your part. He was summoned and refused to appear. Under his oath of obedience he does not have that option.
Again, I have said no such thing. I have specifically, twice now, stated that I do not have the qualifications or authority to determine that, nor do I quite frankly care one way or another.
I will repeat though that there is serious question as to whether one can be in communion when one is still holding a position officially condemned by the Church.
I am not familiar enough with what position he may have held or how he might have interpreted things to know.
According to the Church, in multiple places both before and after Vatican II and going all the way back at least to the Catechism of Trent, the Church has never held the interpretation that Fr. Feeney espoused. The fact that some erroneously make personal interpretations of what THEY think was meant in the original, when the Church declares otherwise, concerns me only to the extent that they mislead people into thinking that the Church taught something it didn’t and is now at odds with herself.
Any time we start pitting ourselves against the only rightful authority to interpret the Church’s teachings, and create disunity and scandal in the Church by doing so, we are going directly against the expressed wishes of Jesus himself. That concerns and saddens me greatly.
Hopefully the Church will eventually produce some clear explanation of why this confusion has been allowed to continue in light of their continuing to say the exact same thing they said at the time they condemned Fr. Feeney’s interpretation.
Peace,
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
Even according to the post-conciliar way of looking things you’re in trouble saying that. The current teaching is that they may not be “formal” members (as in registered card carrying Catholics) but they are members by desire putting them within the Church. You have to be clear with your terminology - you cannot say there are non-Catholics in Heaven - when by desire they would be catholic - had they only known.
Two completely different covenants. Under the old law those who looked forward with faith and anticipation for the coming of the Messiah were saved by anticipation of the merits of Christ’s passion and death. Concerning the good thief - he was still under the old law. The Church teaches that the new law (& the great commission) did not come into effect until after the resurrection.
This is compatible with Mathew 7:14 - few will be saved.
Yes, I’ve heard this many times… it’s a nice way of saying God is not judgmental when the simple fact is… Yes, He is… and HE will judge us when we die. We will not judge ourselves. Then HE will reward us or HE will punish us. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that God is a remunerator.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
BIngo! Finally someone came to the logical conclusion of the whole debate! The teaching apparently changed - at least in the minds of the faithful. The troubling part is that, yes, it was infallible - so, diggerdomer, you’re saying an infallible teaching changed. This leaves us with two possible conlusions: Either the Church was wrong before or it’s wrong now.
I’m not convinced it changed… I’m convinced people’s perception of it changed.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
The problem today is that even well meaning people have knee jerk reactions to EENS based upon sentimentalism. In an effort to sound non-offensive or “mean” they reduce EENS to a “meaningless formula” as Pope Pius XII said. (1)
Let’s look at the facts as they stand and we’ll consider the current mode of thinking on this too and see where people exaggerate certain points.
What we have are infallible Councils and papal pronouncements defining EENS and then we have Saints, Doctors, theologians, Popes making non-infallible statements regarding theological opinions and concepts to explain what might happen to those outside the Church who have never heard of Christ. We have a whole array of these Saints, Doctors, Theologians and Popes on BOTH sides of the issue. Let’s be clear and honest - none of these Saints, doctors, or Popes have ever been, nor will ever be, considered a “heretic” for having believed the more ‘rigorous’ view.
Putting things on the table we have:
*Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Infallible)
*Invincible Ignorance diminishes culpability for the sin against faith but ignorance cannot save anyone nor condemn anyone. (However, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that “invincible ignorance” is a punishment from God.)
*Baptism and Faith (in Christ) is necessary for salvation.
*God, through means known only to Him, can save those who have never heard of Christ but who live according to the natural law and lived according to the dictates of their conscience die in the state of grace and are justified through an implicit desire of baptism. (fallible)
The points where people tend to go overboard is with invincible ignorance and baptism of desire. Dr. Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) states that baptism of desire is not de fide but proximate to the faith. Meaning what I said earlier - that there’s enough Popes & Saints to consider it but not enough to say it’s of the faith. Not to say that the Church could not make that declaration - just that she has not. Dr. Ludwig Ott first published his compilation of dogmatic texts during the 50’s in the height of the Fr. Feeney event.
With invincible ignorance people assume way too much. First, it’s impossible to say that anyone ever has or ever will have ignorance so indestructible as to be “invincible” even to God’s grace!
Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadem (2) I think says it best (see footnotes). First he affirms that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation:
*“For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood;”
*
And then goes on to say,
“but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?”
This is important because first, He’s not making an infallible statement - (it doesn’t meet the requirements established by the 1st Vatican Council for infallibility) but look at what he says and what he doesn’t say. He says Invincible ignorance will not make someone guilty of this sin (against the first commandment) and what he didn’t say is that ignorance can save them. Which is what a lot people imply when they bring up invincible ignorance.
Next, he talks about judging the extents of this invincible ignorance. It could be great - it could be small - it could be none at all. Truth is: We don’t know and we cannot judge it - it’s beyond our capability.
Then he goes on to say, and this is the clincher:
“but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”
Pope Pius IX, (Blessed Pius IX that is), admits - with everything he just said - we don’t know of any other way and as long as we’re on earth we must maintain what we do know and not what we don’t. And we do know that outside the Church there is no salvation. As to any so called exceptions - we just cannot know for sure. All we can know is what Christ left us. He closes with a plea for prayers for the conversion of people to the true faith.
We should try to get every single soul into the Church! We shouldn’t assume ignorance or good will and we definitely shouldn’t preach such. It leads, as we see today, to religious indifferentism (especially towards protestants) and eventually loss of faith.
Let’s look at the facts as they stand and we’ll consider the current mode of thinking on this too and see where people exaggerate certain points.
What we have are infallible Councils and papal pronouncements defining EENS and then we have Saints, Doctors, theologians, Popes making non-infallible statements regarding theological opinions and concepts to explain what might happen to those outside the Church who have never heard of Christ. We have a whole array of these Saints, Doctors, Theologians and Popes on BOTH sides of the issue. Let’s be clear and honest - none of these Saints, doctors, or Popes have ever been, nor will ever be, considered a “heretic” for having believed the more ‘rigorous’ view.
Putting things on the table we have:
*Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Infallible)
*Invincible Ignorance diminishes culpability for the sin against faith but ignorance cannot save anyone nor condemn anyone. (However, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that “invincible ignorance” is a punishment from God.)
*Baptism and Faith (in Christ) is necessary for salvation.
*God, through means known only to Him, can save those who have never heard of Christ but who live according to the natural law and lived according to the dictates of their conscience die in the state of grace and are justified through an implicit desire of baptism. (fallible)
The points where people tend to go overboard is with invincible ignorance and baptism of desire. Dr. Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) states that baptism of desire is not de fide but proximate to the faith. Meaning what I said earlier - that there’s enough Popes & Saints to consider it but not enough to say it’s of the faith. Not to say that the Church could not make that declaration - just that she has not. Dr. Ludwig Ott first published his compilation of dogmatic texts during the 50’s in the height of the Fr. Feeney event.
With invincible ignorance people assume way too much. First, it’s impossible to say that anyone ever has or ever will have ignorance so indestructible as to be “invincible” even to God’s grace!
Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadem (2) I think says it best (see footnotes). First he affirms that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation:
*“For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood;”
*
And then goes on to say,
“but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?”
This is important because first, He’s not making an infallible statement - (it doesn’t meet the requirements established by the 1st Vatican Council for infallibility) but look at what he says and what he doesn’t say. He says Invincible ignorance will not make someone guilty of this sin (against the first commandment) and what he didn’t say is that ignorance can save them. Which is what a lot people imply when they bring up invincible ignorance.
Next, he talks about judging the extents of this invincible ignorance. It could be great - it could be small - it could be none at all. Truth is: We don’t know and we cannot judge it - it’s beyond our capability.
Then he goes on to say, and this is the clincher:
“but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”
Pope Pius IX, (Blessed Pius IX that is), admits - with everything he just said - we don’t know of any other way and as long as we’re on earth we must maintain what we do know and not what we don’t. And we do know that outside the Church there is no salvation. As to any so called exceptions - we just cannot know for sure. All we can know is what Christ left us. He closes with a plea for prayers for the conversion of people to the true faith.
We should try to get every single soul into the Church! We shouldn’t assume ignorance or good will and we definitely shouldn’t preach such. It leads, as we see today, to religious indifferentism (especially towards protestants) and eventually loss of faith.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
Footnotes to my post above:
(1) Humani Generis Pope Pius XII,
"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”[4]
(1) Humani Generis Pope Pius XII,
- Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”[4]
S
Sirach2
Guest
Rosary Crusader:
Just a couple more articles so that readers may form their own conclusion about whether or not the Church has spoken.
Pope John Paul II:
S
Sirach2
Guest
Rosary Crusader:
He was under NO law, not even the old. He was a thief, justly condemned for his crimes, and in full recognition of them, he asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus saw his heart, and the “perfect contrition” which he expressed, and assured him of salvation. It is church teaching that one who implores God’s mercy with perfect contrition for his sins (baptism of repentence) is able to obtain salvation. In another scripture, Jesus exclaimed to the pharisees that the woman who poured forth tears on his feet was “forgiven MUCH, because she hath LOVED much” — in other words, perfect contrition.
D
dekutrash
Guest
Ok, ok…ok
The differing views here have confused me to no end.
So non Catholic Christians are basically screwed or what?
The differing views here have confused me to no end.
So non Catholic Christians are basically screwed or what?
S
Sirach2
Guest
Not so, and I’m truly sorry you are confused. Safety consists in listening to the church, and according to the Holy See’s letter, excerpts below, that was sent to Fr. Feeney, Rome has spoken clearly. This letter lays to rest all doubt about retaining this erroneous opinion, and is the most important one of recent times. In fact, it was the basis for V-II’s decision, clearly set forth and quoted previously in chapter 16, Lumen Gentium.
Since Rome has said “they have spoken,” it is now a matter of bringing oneself to submission to the Church, as “necessary for salvation.”
If Rome condemned the errors for a written periodical “From the Housetops,” it is difficult for me to understand why those who spread this error are permitted to do so at Catholic websites, and why this error is not also condemned in keeping with the mind of the church. Maybe I just don’t understand the rule of free speech.
S
sawman
Guest
Thank you, Sirach2, for the quotes from these documents. Much clarification and edification there. Blessed be Holy Mother the Church! Blessed be our Lord Jesus!
Peace,
Tom
Peace,
Tom
J
joedecarlo
Guest
It was an infallible teaching. A priest recently told me that the infallible teaching was misinterpreted.
D
distracted
Guest
from what i have gathered… the last 5 popes have disagreed with these ones you quote…
JPII said that all religions are “great” and from what i can ascertain, he said that a person can be saved therein… Also, as far as i know… he never tried to convert the voodoo practices and Jews he knew… 
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This is not the normal forum on which I debate. I’m usually in the Social Justice or non-Catholic (specifically Muslim) forums.
I have no idea what “EENS” means. I have a slight understanding of the hatred between some who insist that Vatican 2 ruined the Church (a hard thing to accomplish being as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) and those who believe it did some good. I also somewhat understand “novus ordo.” I’ve run across people who insist the Mass must be in Latin and Greek, and those who insist it should be in the prevailing language of the area. But I’ll have to put off the study of these terms and traditional Catholicism until a future time.
But one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is that what God does He does in Love. It hurts and saddens me to see ad hominems being flung about by people who could have perhaps have made their points without personal insults. By this I mean specifically those who claim Feeneyism is not a heresy (it is).
I again suggest that those who believe Feeney’s teachings are not a heresy to contact CAF. You have the responsibility to do so. If you don’t, you are giving tacit approval to what CAF states, which you insist is in error.
What I’m seeing here is Catholic snobbery. I’ve seen it other places, though not so much as here. The Catholic Church is some sort of club and only those who are members will be granted eternal life in heaven, in Christ. How dare those of us who disagree post our views! The fact that our views correlate with the views held by the Church makes no difference.
A non-Catholic who lives his life as best as he can, who clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty, visits those who are ill and/or are in prison - in short, does everything he can do to show love to his neighbor, is denied salvation because he is not a member of the Catholic Church.
But Jesus said “whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brethren, you do to me.” So that non-Catholic has clothed Jesus, has fed Jesus, has given Jesus water, has visited Jesus when he is ill and/or in prison. But that isn’t enough. He gets sent to hell because he’s not Catholic. This doesn’t sound like a message of God’s love - this sounds like something Jack Chick would write!
The Church has never taught such a ridiculous concept and never will. As I stated in a previous post I do hope that everyone becomes a practicing Catholic and I add now that I hope everyone does his/her best to follow the teachings of the Christ.
But to say a twelve year old girl who is killed in a car accident will have been given every opportunity to join the Church as a member is utterly simplistic; just as simplistic as to say she will go to hell because she is not a member of the Church.
Catholics are blessed. We have been given so many gifts. What I see here is a flaunting of those gifts over others who have not been so blessed. We’re somehow better than non-Catholics. We’re holier, we’re more pious, we love God more, on and on ad nauseum. I’ve even read that Catholics are responsible for absolutely everything good that has ever happened on earth. Extremely ad nauseum. Catholics are NOTHING without the love of God. Catholics are less than cockroaches. If it weren’t for God we would be eating dirt, running around naked and filthy, and slaughtering anyone who had the nerve to disagree with us.
I am blessed in that my parents had me baptised as an infant and that after I had left the Church God granted me the wisdom and intelligence to make the right decision to come back. I didn’t come back because I am good - I came back because of the gifts God gave me. Without God I am absolutely nothing. Anything and everything good about me is due to His love and that includes my free will and my ability to responsibly take care of the life he has entrusted to my care.
Now I’ve been accused of playing a game. I have no idea what this game would be. But I am seeing so much snobbery, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy that I understand why non-Catholics become confused and refuse to join the Church. And I now understand Fulton Sheen’s famous saying.
If we want our brothers and sisters to be united with us in God’s Church, we must be charitable towards them. No lesson will be accepted if it is presented in an insulting, hurting manner. I’m not saying I’m very good at this. I have been uncharitable many times and I pray that God teaches me charity.
Oh, one last thing - may God bring us all the ability to forgive and to love those who do not agree with us.
I have no idea what “EENS” means. I have a slight understanding of the hatred between some who insist that Vatican 2 ruined the Church (a hard thing to accomplish being as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) and those who believe it did some good. I also somewhat understand “novus ordo.” I’ve run across people who insist the Mass must be in Latin and Greek, and those who insist it should be in the prevailing language of the area. But I’ll have to put off the study of these terms and traditional Catholicism until a future time.
But one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is that what God does He does in Love. It hurts and saddens me to see ad hominems being flung about by people who could have perhaps have made their points without personal insults. By this I mean specifically those who claim Feeneyism is not a heresy (it is).
I again suggest that those who believe Feeney’s teachings are not a heresy to contact CAF. You have the responsibility to do so. If you don’t, you are giving tacit approval to what CAF states, which you insist is in error.
What I’m seeing here is Catholic snobbery. I’ve seen it other places, though not so much as here. The Catholic Church is some sort of club and only those who are members will be granted eternal life in heaven, in Christ. How dare those of us who disagree post our views! The fact that our views correlate with the views held by the Church makes no difference.
A non-Catholic who lives his life as best as he can, who clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty, visits those who are ill and/or are in prison - in short, does everything he can do to show love to his neighbor, is denied salvation because he is not a member of the Catholic Church.
But Jesus said “whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brethren, you do to me.” So that non-Catholic has clothed Jesus, has fed Jesus, has given Jesus water, has visited Jesus when he is ill and/or in prison. But that isn’t enough. He gets sent to hell because he’s not Catholic. This doesn’t sound like a message of God’s love - this sounds like something Jack Chick would write!
The Church has never taught such a ridiculous concept and never will. As I stated in a previous post I do hope that everyone becomes a practicing Catholic and I add now that I hope everyone does his/her best to follow the teachings of the Christ.
But to say a twelve year old girl who is killed in a car accident will have been given every opportunity to join the Church as a member is utterly simplistic; just as simplistic as to say she will go to hell because she is not a member of the Church.
Catholics are blessed. We have been given so many gifts. What I see here is a flaunting of those gifts over others who have not been so blessed. We’re somehow better than non-Catholics. We’re holier, we’re more pious, we love God more, on and on ad nauseum. I’ve even read that Catholics are responsible for absolutely everything good that has ever happened on earth. Extremely ad nauseum. Catholics are NOTHING without the love of God. Catholics are less than cockroaches. If it weren’t for God we would be eating dirt, running around naked and filthy, and slaughtering anyone who had the nerve to disagree with us.
I am blessed in that my parents had me baptised as an infant and that after I had left the Church God granted me the wisdom and intelligence to make the right decision to come back. I didn’t come back because I am good - I came back because of the gifts God gave me. Without God I am absolutely nothing. Anything and everything good about me is due to His love and that includes my free will and my ability to responsibly take care of the life he has entrusted to my care.
Now I’ve been accused of playing a game. I have no idea what this game would be. But I am seeing so much snobbery, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy that I understand why non-Catholics become confused and refuse to join the Church. And I now understand Fulton Sheen’s famous saying.
If we want our brothers and sisters to be united with us in God’s Church, we must be charitable towards them. No lesson will be accepted if it is presented in an insulting, hurting manner. I’m not saying I’m very good at this. I have been uncharitable many times and I pray that God teaches me charity.
Oh, one last thing - may God bring us all the ability to forgive and to love those who do not agree with us.
D
distracted
Guest
pleaseclarify for me (and others??)
Fr Feeney believes that there is absolutely NO salvation outside the roman Catholic Church and he was excommunicated by Pius XII over this belief? or was he ex-com’d because he defied the pope?
please give any other details you can also… thanks…
D
dekutrash
Guest
:whacky:
It seems like the both of us are confused no matter what info people give us.
It seems like the both of us are confused no matter what info people give us.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I think you may be talking past each other here. I’m not even sure which teaching is being referred to here, but infallible teachings interpreted and/or taught incorrectly can be looked at as:
The teaching was infallible but so grossly misunderstood that the teaching as taught was not infallible.
If the Church teaches “A+B+C=D” but it is taught (by a huge majority of people) as “A+B-C=D/A” the infallible teaching has been mangled to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the original infallible teaching; the “new” teaching is not infallible and actually isn’t really a Church teaching at all.
Does this make sense?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I want to thank you for your well-researched and well-written posts regarded Feeneyism. I hope they have cleared up a lot of misconceptions.Not so, and I’m truly sorry you are confused. Safety consists in listening to the church, and according to the Holy See’s letter, excerpts below, that was sent to Fr. Feeney, Rome has spoken clearly. This letter lays to rest all doubt about retaining this erroneous opinion, and is the most important one of recent times. In fact, it was the basis for V-II’s decision, clearly set forth and quoted previously in chapter 16, Lumen Gentium.
Since Rome has said “they have spoken,” it is now a matter of bringing oneself to submission to the Church, as “necessary for salvation.”
If Rome condemned the errors for a written periodical “From the Housetops,” it is difficult for me to understand why those who spread this error are permitted to do so at Catholic websites, and why this error is not also condemned in keeping with the mind of the church. Maybe I just don’t understand the rule of free speech.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Yes, Fr. Feeney believed and taught that there is no salvation unless one is a member of the Catholic Church. I believe it was his teaching that got him into trouble. We are all free to think about what the Church states and we are encouraged to do so. But when someone teaches heresy he is leading people away from the Church.pleaseclarify for me (and others??)
Fr Feeney believes that there is absolutely NO salvation outside the roman Catholic Church and he was excommunicated by Pius XII over this belief? or was he ex-com’d because he defied the pope?
please give any other details you can also… thanks…
It’s my understanding that Fr. Feeney was teaching heresy and was told to stop. He refused to stop. Eventually the Vatican became involved and Fr. Feeney was ordered to present himself at the Vatican. Fr. Feeney can say that he wasn’t given all the information he needed or use many other excuses, but I believe that if a priest is ordered to go to the Vatican, he is supposed to go to the Vatican. Fr. Feeney didn’t go.
At any rate, if he hadn’t been teaching heresy he wouldn’t have been ordered to go to the Vatican in the first place. So one could say it was his teaching of heresy that ultimately led to his excommunication or one could say it was his refusal to present himself at the Vatican which led to his excommunication. Both are correct and both are related to his refusal to cease teaching heresy.
This is my understanding but someone else can probably explain it in a manner better than mine.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
I think it’s obvious you’re referring to me in your post and I"m sorry if you were offended. However, it doesn’t show a bit of goodwill when you continuously malign the SBC saying they’re not in full communion and when given a link to the scanned images of the documents proving that they are you refuse to view them and keep making false claims. If there has been anything uncharitable on this thread it is certainly that - and if I came across as too harsh I apologize now, although there is a duty to defend the innocent from false accusations.
Please keep in mind that a man is not saved by works alone as St. James tells us in his epistle. He is saved by ‘faith that worketh by charity.’ And what is faith? Faith is the believing of everything that God revealed solely on the merit of it having come from God. Does a protestant have supernatural faith if he says he believes in Jesus yet denies some of the very teachings of Christ? If so, what is his faith in? It’s surely not believing in what God has revealed. Christ said ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened to you. Christ will respond to those seeking him and others of good will.
Sorry, but yes She did
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
You misinterpret those who defend EENS (extra ecclesiam nulla salus - outside the Church there is no salvation) as flaunting and uncharitable. It’s precisely because of this dogma that we need to get out there and do our best to bring everyone into the fold (and use words if necessary) as Christ Himself wishes everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. If I see my daughter running into the street with oncoming traffic I may have to tackle her down to the ground in order to save her life. Some may perceive my tackling to be cruel because they didn’t see the danger ahead of her.
Being Catholic does not assure anyone of salvation. In fact St. Leoanard says that Mathew 7:14 (mentioned earlier) which speaks about the small number of those who will be saved - is referencing Catholics. olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
I agree… but have you ever came across a protestant who immediately starts telling you that your Church is the ‘whore of Babylon’ and that you’re idol worshippers? You drop the nice mode and get into defensive position and then ready for offensive.
You did this in a certain sense by maintaining falsehoods concerning Catholics in good standing with the Church while refusing to see the letters from the Vatican and Bishops saying they’re in good standing.
Anyway, I think this thread is pretty much done. Sorry if I came across as all the things you said.
God Bless,
- Status