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

[chypmonk]

I agree. I see no good will with those on this thread who are opposed to EENS. Name calling and accusations abound by those who hate the SBC but no proof that BoD is infallibly taught. While those for the dogma have proof by infallible definitions and approved religious communities.

BoDers have only created a bad name for their position, all who read with an honest open mind will see they have no strong arguments worthy against EENSers, while BoDers can’t even define there own position.

If the anger used against Fr. Feeney in this thread were used against Bishop Lefebvre we would see much more fireworks and anger than those who sympathize with Fr. Feeney.

PEACE

 

[Sirach2]

Hi Distracted,

This letter from the Holy See has been referred to and linked a number of times, but I believe the opening paragraph here will answer your question as to why he was excommunicated. The Pope did not get involved over this because it was a minor issue. Father had been circulating periodicals teaching, as I posted earlier “doctrines which contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas that fostered fanaticism and intolerance.”

There were many documents collected and examined with a final conclusion directed to Feeny to retract his wrong teachings.

As you recognized in this and other threads, there is still a false interpretation being understood by those who had the unfortunate experience of reading these papal documents circulated by Feeney and his followers to justify his teachings. Howver, the Vatican declared that these documents have been misunderstood. I gave Cardinal Ratzinger’s take on St. Cyril’s comments, as well as Pope John Paul II’s clarification of the Church’s teaching.

If you read the letter again, you’ll see that the Holy See is deeply upset by his teachings, and reminded him that only the Church can rightly interpret them.

I hope this helps.

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

Although I can’t put my finger on it at this moment, I read that Feeney was extremely anti-semitic and used blatantly insulting words such as dirty “kike.” Probably he would be incensed if he found any jews in heaven.

 

[Sirach2]

Chypmonk:

Name calling and accusations abound by those who hate the SBC but no proof that BoD is infallibly taught.

There have been no accusations and no indications of hatred for SBC.

As for proof of BOD, you know perfectly well, since you participated in the other thread that BOD and BOB were clearly, without a doubt, expounded fully. Saying that proof was not presented may be true in THIS thread, I don’t know since I haven’t read it all. Nevertheless, if it was not rehashed, it would be due to being off topic and not relevant to the OP’s question. I send you back to review the other thread and the many others on Catholic Answers that address this completely and satisfactorily. I trust you are familiar with the search function.

Concluding then, absence of yet another dogmatic presentation of BOD herein does not mean the posters are unable to present it as being nonexistent, since the Church has always taught it. I gave two examples of “perfect contrition” a few posts ago, which is a very profound example of BOD and is taught by Christ Himself in his remission of sins to those who expressed repentence for them.

I believe I’ve submitted enough food for everyone to disgest, and I’m going to bow out now.

 

[Sirach2]

Well, it didn’t take long to find an article pointing to Feeney’s anti-semitism. Most of you know Karl Keating, the owner of Catholic Answers?

Here are the main titles from the issues for 1957:

January:
“Jewish Invasion of Our Country–Our Culture Under Siege”
February:
“When Everyone Was Catholic–The Courage of the Faith (Regarding the Jews) in the Thirteenth Century”
March:
“Dublin’s Briscoe (Jewish Lord Mayor) Comes to Boston”
April:
“The Fight for the Holy City–Efforts of the Jews to Control Jerusalem”
May:
“Our Lady of Fatima Warned Us (About Jewish Communists)”
June:
“The Rejected People of Holy Scripture: Why the Jews Fear the Bible”
July:
“The Judaising of Christians by Jews–Tactics of the Church’s Leading Enemies”
August:
“A Sure Defense Against the Jews–What Our Catholic Bishops Can Do for Us”
September:
“An Unholy People in the Holy Land–The Actions of the Jews”
October:
“The Jewish Lie About Brotherhood–the Catholic Answer–Israeli Brotherhood”
November:
“Six Pointers on the Jews”
December:
“The Price of Christmas in Mexico–Freemasons”

You will note that the title of each issue, except for December’s, includes an explicit reference to Jews. The proportion is similar for the other years in which “The Point” was published.

Leonard Feeney may be remembered today for insisting that “there is no salvation outside the Church” (a true doctrine, by the way, if properly interpreted), but it seems that in the 1950s he and his Slaves were preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession. They blamed Jews for all sorts of ills: religious, political, social, and cultural.

The talks quickly achieved notoriety, not so much because they pushed the Feeneyite take on salvation but because of the unrelenting Jew-baiting that came from the platform. My friend remembers the Feeneyite speakers regularly using terms such as “kike” when referring to Jews.

http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

No, I am NOT saying an infallible teaching changed.

Why do you think that? What teaching that you claim was taught infallibly did I say changed?

 

[diggerdomer]

Ok, ok…ok

The differing views here have confused me to no end.

So non Catholic Christians are basically screwed or what?

They are basically loved by God, and God wills them to be saved.

 

[diggerdomer]

It was an infallible teaching. A priest recently told me that the infallible teaching was misinterpreted.

What, exactly, is it that you claim was an infallible teaching?

 

[diggerdomer]

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, :

I don’t see where those citations apply. The Catechism is quite clear on this. Again, see para 846-848.

I don’t really see how anything regarding the unfortunate historical example of Fr. Feeney is essentially pertinent to this thread.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

There have been no accusations and no indications of hatred for SBC.

As for proof of BOD, you know perfectly well, since you participated in the other thread that BOD and BOB were clearly, without a doubt, expounded fully. Saying that proof was not presented may be true in THIS thread, I don’t know since I haven’t read it all. Nevertheless, if it was not rehashed, it would be due to being off topic and not relevant to the OP’s question. I send you back to review the other thread and the many others on Catholic Answers that address this completely and satisfactorily. I trust you are familiar with the search function.

Concluding then, absence of yet another dogmatic presentation of BOD herein does not mean the posters are unable to present it as being nonexistent, since the Church has always taught it. I gave two examples of “perfect contrition” a few posts ago, which is a very profound example of BOD and is taught by Christ Himself in his remission of sins to those who expressed repentence for them.

I believe I’ve submitted enough food for everyone to disgest, and I’m going to bow out now.

You have to keep in mind that the issue wasn’t primarily Fr. Feeney’s views on baptism of desire - in fact he let it be known that they were merely his opinions. The trouble was with him proclaiming a Catholic Dogma that isn’t extremely popular and evokes wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime it’s mentioned. Fr. Feeney became the epitomy of the dogma which was then excommunicated leaving the impression that there is salvation outside the Church and that the dogma is heresy when that is not what the Church teaches even to this day. Saying there is salvation outside the Church is heresy and I encourage everyone to listen to Fr. Isaac Relyea’s talk on this matter who is not a Feeneyite, not excommunicated, is a Priest of the Diocese currently working in association with the FSSP.

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

 

[RosaryCrusader]

No, I am NOT saying an infallible teaching changed.

Why do you think that? What teaching that you claim was taught infallibly did I say changed?

I know you didn’t say an infallible teaching changed - because you don’t think it’s infallible but you do acknowledged the teaching changed and that’s what I was driving home. Now you just have to bone up on your reading and realize that EENS is infallible (see one of my earlier posts where I quote the Holy Office’s letter to Cardinal Cushing) meaning that an infallible teaching apparently changed - at least that is the impression of the faithful.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Well, it didn’t take long to find an article pointing to Feeney’s anti-semitism. Most of you know Karl Keating, the owner of Catholic Answers?

Sirach, please don’t go trying to sling mud with charges of anti-semitism. Sure there’s people who played that card then and now and it’s the ‘in thing’ these days. If you’re against Israel you’re an anti-semite, if you pray for the conversion of jews you’re anti-semite. Please don’t go there.

 

[ncjohn]

I know you didn’t say an infallible teaching changed - because you don’t think it’s infallible but you do acknowledged the teaching changed and that’s what I was driving home. Now you just have to bone up on your reading and realize that EENS is infallible (see one of my earlier posts where I quote the Holy Office’s letter to Cardinal Cushing) meaning that an infallible teaching apparently changed - at least that is the impression of the faithful.

I’m curious when you think the teaching “changed”. We know that going back to at least the Catechism of Trent that the same thing we are saying now–and which the Church said in the letter to the Cardinal–was the teaching being presented. That interpretation of the Church shows up consistently in Catechisms along with numerous Papal documents from the likes of Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XII and on up to the present day. Actual quotes from these documents have been posted in many places here, including the Invincible Ignorance thread. And the Church, as noted in the Cardinal Cushing letter, claims it has ALWAYS held that interpretation. The only people who seem to think it means something else, a la Fr. Feeney’s interpretation, are those who believe they are better able to interpret the Church’s documents than the Church is despite the Church’s firm stand on what they mean.

I can understand how people come to the conclusion they do based on the wording if one does not take into consideration the demographics of the Catholic world at the time the documents were written. The Church, however, is well aware of those considerations and says that even then they were understood the way the Church says today that they understand them.

So when is it that you think the teaching changed and where do you find a statement that says something to the effect that “while the Church has always taught X, we feel now that we better understand it that really means Y”.

The other question I have is this: If one recognizes the Popes at least going back to Pius XII, and understands and agrees that the Church is the ultimate authority as to what its dogmas and doctrines mean, why would one be suggesting that their authoritative statements are in error when they have made a definitive statement?

I’m not trying to be insulting in any way or make any judgments of anybody. I truly just don’t understand how one comes to that conclusion.

Peace,

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I’m curious when you think the teaching “changed”. We know that going back to at least the Catechism of Trent that the same thing we are saying now–and which the Church said in the letter to the Cardinal–was the teaching being presented. That interpretation of the Church shows up consistently in Catechisms along with numerous Papal documents from the likes of Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XII and on up to the present day. Actual quotes from these documents have been posted in many places here, including the Invincible Ignorance thread. And the Church, as noted in the Cardinal Cushing letter, claims it has ALWAYS held that interpretation. The only people who seem to think it means something else, a la Fr. Feeney’s interpretation, are those who believe they are better able to interpret the Church’s documents than the Church is despite the Church’s firm stand on what they mean.

I can understand how people come to the conclusion they do based on the wording if one does not take into consideration the demographics of the Catholic world at the time the documents were written. The Church, however, is well aware of those considerations and says that even then they were understood the way the Church says today that they understand them.

So when is it that you think the teaching changed and where do you find a statement that says something to the effect that “while the Church has always taught X, we feel now that we better understand it that really means Y”.

The other question I have is this: If one recognizes the Popes at least going back to Pius XII, and understands and agrees that the Church is the ultimate authority as to what its dogmas and doctrines mean, why would one be suggesting that their authoritative statements are in error when they have made a definitive statement?

I’m not trying to be insulting in any way or make any judgments of anybody. I truly just don’t understand how one comes to that conclusion.

Peace,

I didn’t say the teaching changed - Diggerdomer did. I said the common perception is that it changed.

There are subtleties that exist when discussing this issue that make it difficult for people to have a conversation without first having defined what we know and what is theological opinion and then go from there. But one thing is clear the Church has never taught and never will that people can be saved in any religion other than the Catholic Church. This premise has to be acknowledged before any meaningful conversation can take place. But even in saying that much people will recoil with so much fear and disgust to the point where they’ll go the opposite extreme and say there is salvation outside the Church.

 

[ready]

The Catholic Church is very clear about this dogma:

Council of Florence, Session 11, Ex Cathedra (emphasis mine):

…and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

Does what the Church solemnly defines here contradict what it, at a later time (I think), says about baptism of blood? After all, being baptized in blood means you are baptized (even if only by your own blood) and thus you should be considered safe in the bosom and unity of the catholic church. Can any one shed some light on this for me?

 

[ncjohn]

I didn’t say the teaching changed - Diggerdomer did. I said the common perception is that it changed.

Ok, we might be in agreement here.

But one thing is clear the Church has never taught and never will that people can be saved in any religion other than the Catholic Church.

If by this you mean that nobody can be saved BY any religion other than the Catholic Church, through whom all salvation comes, then we may well be in agreement even here. That might lead me to believe that maybe we’ve just been talking past each other, though I’m not quite ready to go there yet as I’m still not sure I understand if you support Feeney’s version that one must physically be “in” the Catholic Church.

I think we have a good start here regardless though.

 

[ncjohn]

Please note that in my last post I left a quote command off and this line should actually have been quoted from RC’s post:

RosaryCrusader:

But one thing is clear the Church has never taught and never will that people can be saved in any religion other than the Catholic Church.

 

[distracted]

Hi Distracted,

This letter from the Holy See has been referred to and linked a number of times, but I believe the opening paragraph here will answer your question as to why he was excommunicated. The Pope did not get involved over this because it was a minor issue. Father had been circulating periodicals teaching, as I posted earlier “doctrines which contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas that fostered fanaticism and intolerance.”

There were many documents collected and examined with a final conclusion directed to Feeny to retract his wrong teachings.

As you recognized in this and other threads, there is still a false interpretation being understood by those who had the unfortunate experience of reading these papal documents circulated by Feeney and his followers to justify his teachings. Howver, the Vatican declared that these documents have been misunderstood. I gave Cardinal Ratzinger’s take on St. Cyril’s comments, as well as Pope John Paul II’s clarification of the Church’s teaching.

If you read the letter again, you’ll see that the Holy See is deeply upset by his teachings, and reminded him that only the Church can rightly interpret them.

I hope this helps.

Although I can’t put my finger on it at this moment, I read that Feeney was extremely anti-semitic and used blatantly insulting words such as dirty “kike.” Probably he would be incensed if he found any jews in heaven.

thanks… but i am still somewhat confused… never heard of Fr Feeney…until a few days ago…

i wish people would stop abbreviting… EENS and Bods…

 

[LittleSoldier]

Does what the Church solemnly defines here contradict what it, at a later time (I think), says about baptism of blood? After all, being baptized in blood means you are baptized (even if only by your own blood) and thus you should be considered safe in the bosom and unity of the catholic church. Can any one shed some light on this for me?

Why is “catholic church” not spelled as “Catholic Church”?

 

[LittleSoldier]

thanks… but i am still somewhat confused… never heard of Fr Feeney…until a few days ago…

i wish people would stop abbreviting… EENS and Bods…

I agree. “Bod” is short for “body”, as in “my bod is getting kinda fat.”

That type of terminology just splits us up even more.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sirach, please don’t go trying to sling mud with charges of anti-semitism. Sure there’s people who played that card then and now and it’s the ‘in thing’ these days. If you’re against Israel you’re an anti-semite, if you pray for the conversion of jews you’re anti-semite. Please don’t go there.

If anti-semitism is important to this topic then it should be brought up and discussed. I find it personally abhorrent for a priest (or excommunicated priest, or ex-priest) to use the term I have read in this thread which is a derogatory term for Jewish people. I have Jews in my family and this is embarrassing to me.

If Feeney used that term or promoted anti-semitism, it doesn’t say much for him as a priest or as a person. It makes me ill.

Should we just sweep it under the carpet and hope it disappears? It won’t, you know. It’ll just sit there, getting dirtier and dirtier.

It’s not the “in-thing” these days. This is the first I’ve heard of anti-semitism in years. Anti-Catholicism is much more popular (note the recent horrendous Satanic attack on St. Rose of Lima Church in Maywood, CA) and the never-ending reporting of the sexual abuse scandal.