What must we do to be saved?

[itsjustdave1988]

Furthermore, the Baltimore Catechism of 1891, which served the US wonderfully during Pope St. Pius X’s papacy stated the following:

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. …

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. … (Baltimore Catechism no. 4)

Is it your contention that the Baltimore Catechism of 1891 is less trustworthy than the non-magisterial opinions you claim, without authentic magisterial backing, to be authentically Catholic?

 

[montanaman]

No, I do not concede that he is eligible. My point goes beyond the fact that some converted and some didn’t. Why did the Church go to such lengths, with so many murderings of Priests, etc., etc. if they were already going to Heaven. Yes, that does not excuse from the requirement of evangleization (which isn’t a logical conclusion from “invincible ignorance”), but certainly undue evangelization like that would not be “required.” God bless.

So, through no fault of his own, he’s condemned? Because he had the misfortune of being born in a place where the name of Christ was never spoken, he’s hellbound? If that’s your vision of God, I feel sorry for you.

I, however, am not saying he’s definitely saved. If he’s lived his life according to the law the best he understands it, he’s got a good shot. It’s no guarantee–it’s just a possibility. Utterly closing that door means God is a tyrant.

The exchange between you and I seems to have a misunderstanding at the heart of it. When I say there’s at least a possibility of a person being saved outside the Church, I’m not saying I believe he’s CERTAINLY saved.

You also seem to be working very hard to prove that God is some kind of monster that guarantees some of his creations will suffer for eternity through no fault of their own. This is your idea of perfect justice and mercy?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr. Feeney’s erroneous teaching is as follows:

“Let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.” (Bread of Life, ch.V, p.98)

Compare this to what Pope St. Pius X taught:

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. …

Of these two, who is vested with the authentic magisterium, Fr. Feeney or Pope St. Pius X? Whose interpretation is more trustworthy?

 

[Vincent]

EENS:

It’s true that you don’t have to call Pope Pius IX a heretic. That’s not what I’m asking.

For example, you can point out that the proposition, “Mary is not the Mother of God”, is heretical, without judging the person who holds it to be a heretic.

So, without judging the Pope, would you say that this statement is heretical?
“It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life…”
I don’t think this is a heretical statement for the very reason that Lateran IV and Florence just dealt with the grave matter of being outside the Church. It didn’t deal with what Pius IX and Vatican II addressed: those who lacked full knowledge and complete consent.

We all know what it takes for sin to be mortal, and it is not sola materia gravis.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

EENS:

If the CCC was not wrong, why did the Pope make corrections?

EENS, none of the adaptations in the 2nd edition were corrections of errors.

In any event, the point remains: you think Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, Vatican II, Paul VI, and JPII are wrong on their teaching on the possibility of salvation for those who do not visibly belong to the Catholic Church.

 

[Matt16_18]

EENS

I made a response to that: his encyclical is not infallible Quanto conficiamur moerore. The Creeds, Councils, and Papal Bulls of the Church are infallible.

This is a sloppy argument on many levels. The most obvious being: why should any Catholic accept your authority that the Blessed Pope Pius IX was in error when he wrote Quanto conficiamur moerore, and that Father Feeney’s views represent the true teachings of the Church?

But let us leave that obvious question alone for the moment.

Lumen Gentium IS a document of an Ecumenical Council, and LG says this:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.

Lumen Gentium, 16

More…

 

[Matt16_18]

continued …

Now the Feeneyites have to do considerable squirming and weaseling to try and twist LG 16 into a pro-Feeneyite position. They try their hardest to argue that the mind of the Council was with Feeney and not Pope Pius IX, but that is utter nonsense. That silliness can be put to rest by merely examining footnote 19 that was referenced by the Fathers of Vatican II in LG 16.

Footnote 19: Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3 86972
(Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston . Denz. 3869-72).

Let us look at a few quotes from this letter and see if it supports Father Feeney:

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. …

Furthermore, **it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” ** and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

… let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

 

[EENS]

There is no way I can respond to all of these tonight… however, I will start here:

Q: Are we obliged to hear the Teaching Church?
A: Yes, without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church; for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of His Church, in the persons of the Apostles: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me."

Well, then, I absolutely agree–case solved!

“without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church” WITHOUT DOUBT we will suffer eternal and sure damnation to reject the Teaching Church.

(In any event, notice the difference between the Teaching Church and the teaching Church just as in Tradition and tradition.)

God bless.

 

[Matt16_18]

EENS

It is obvious that the Fathers of Vatican II were not exactly enamored with the views of Father Feeney, or they wouldn’t have referenced the letter of the CDF that censored Father Feeney and the St. Benedict’s Center.

Now, let us see if the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston that Fathers of Vatican II referenced in LG 16 to see if it supports Pope Pius IX’s teaching in Quanto conficiamur moerore.

Surprise! The letter quotes Quanto conficiamur moerore to show why Father Feeney was in error.

More …

 

[Matt16_18]

Excerpt from the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. …

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). **With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion ** (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in , n. 1677.

 

[EENS]

Matt16_18:

continued …

Footnote 19: Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3 86972

(Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston . Denz. 3869-72).

Let us look at a few quotes from this letter and see if it supports Father Feeney:

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. …

Furthermore, **it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” **and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

… let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

It would be noteworthy to remind you all that the excommunication was rescinded. (This letter et al. from BEFORE the rescinding of the excommunication are no longer withstanding afterward.) The fact is that Fr. Feeney never had to recant. The Church has never allowed a professed heretic/schismatic back into the Church especially AFTER he was already excommunicated. St. Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated–so was Father Feeney. God bless.

 

[Matt16_18]

EENS:

It would be noteworthy to remind you all that the excommunication was rescinded.

It this that best argument that you have?

The Letter of the CDF to Archbishop of Boston has never been rescinded.

KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER , January 13, 2004:

Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.

 

[iguana27]

EENS:

St. Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated–so was Father Feeney. God bless.

Eens,

You can wait all you want for Feeney to be canonized, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. His interpretation of no salvation outside the church was clearly heretical, and he was excommunicated for it. That is, he showed himself to be in disaccord with the one holy apostolic Church. By adhering to this heretical teaching, you are separating yourself from the Church and the teachings of the Holy Father.

I will pray for you.

God Bless,
Iguana

 

[Matt16_18]

iguana27:

Eens,

You can wait all you want for Feeney to be canonized, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. His interpretation of no salvation outside the church was clearly heretical, and he was excommunicated for it.

Technically, Fr. Feeney wasn’t excommunicated for being a heretic; he was excommunicated for disobedience to legitimate ecclesial authority. That is Karl Keating’s point – Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, and the lifting of the ban of excommunication applied only to the cause of the excommunication.

In no way did Rome ever rescind the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston. The argument that Rome, in some obscure way, lifted the condemnation of Feeney’s heretical teachings by lifting the ban of excommunication against Fr. Feeney is nonsense - just another typical example of the convoluted the arguments of the Feeneyites that presume to think that they are teaching authority of the Church.

Fr. Feeney was told three different times to come to Rome to defend his teachings. One would think that if Fr. Feeney was confident that his rigid interpretations of “Outside The Church There Is No Salvation” were correct, that he would be more than willing to defend his view.

Father Feeney refused to go to Rome three times. If he had been obedient, we wouldn’t have had to deal with his nonsense today. He would either have recanted of his views or have been excommunicated for them. No Salvation Without Water Baptism is not a teaching of the church.

 

[davidv]

I didn’t vote because none of the choices are complete. Not only must we have faith, we must act like we believe. We must submit our will to Jesus and accept his grace to become holy. That said, in one way of thinking, we can do nothing to be saved, because all the good we do comes through the power of grace. But, we still must “do” - trust God and obey him.

David

 

[fulloftruth]

I don’t think any of your choices cover all of the possibilities for salvation. There are some partial options to be voted on but thats it.

 

[EENS]

Matt16_18:

Father Feeney refused to go to Rome three times. If he had been obedient, we wouldn’t have had to deal with his nonsense today. He would either have recanted of his views or have been excommunicated for them.

No, he WASN’T being disobedient fornot appearing in Rome. He was asked to come to Rome; however, they gave no reason. He wrote back stating that according to Canon Law (at this time it was 1917 Canon Law) he had to be given a reason. The next to letters did not provide a reason. Therfore, according to canon law he had no reason nor obligation to go to Rome. He wrote them and told them what were in the canons and why he was not going to go. I can get you the exact information from Canon Law 1917 if you would like. God bless.

 

[Stylite]

EENS,

A question for you to help me sharpen my understanding of your position.

Would an ignorant Lutheran man who died instantaneously (and having no chance to sin voluntarily) after receiving a valid Baptism go to Hell?

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Stylite:

EENS,

A question for you to help me sharpen my understanding of your position.

Would an ignorant Lutheran man who died instantaneously (and having no chance to sin voluntarily) after receiving a valid Baptism go to Hell?

Great question, Stylite… I look forward to EENS’s answer.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

EENS:

Well, then, I absolutely agree–case solved!

“without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church” WITHOUT DOUBT we will suffer eternal and sure damnation to reject the Teaching Church.

(In any event, notice the difference between the Teaching Church and the teaching Church just as in Tradition and tradition.)

I believe Pope St. Pius X’s teaching just zoomed right by you.

Are you or Fr. Feeney part of the TEACHING CHURCH, according to Pope St. Pius X? No.

The TEACHING CHURCH consists in the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. According to Pope St. Pius X, Fr. Feeney and you are part of the LEARNING CHURCH, which are BOUND to hear the teachings of the TEACHING CHURCH as though that teaching came from Jesus Christ. From the PAPAL BULL Unam Sanctum:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] … Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It does not say that we are subject the interpreation of Tradition by our own private lights, or that we are subject to Fr. Feeney’s, or any other non-magisterial interpretation of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

The TEACHING CHURCH formally rejected Fr. Feeney’s erroneous interpretation of this infallible dogma as is clear by the Letter from the Holy Office ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.htm, approved by Pope Pius XII (to whom Fr. Feeney and his disciples were “entirely subject” according to Unam Sanctum).

I ask again … which source of Catholic Tradition tells me that I shoud accept non-magisterial opinion over what has been formally decreed as the interpretation of this infallible dogma by the TEACHING CHURCH?