What must we do to be saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EENS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
EENS,
You may want to check what Pope Stephen I in the 3th century ruled on this point, in addition to the Council of Trent. Read about it here… newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Here’s an excerpt:
Click to expand...
That is true. Once baptised outside the Church, if done validly, cannot be repeated (however, it was always repeated CONDITIONALLY just in case). That does not mean they are saved if they persist in heresy. God bless.
 
EENS

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.

No, I am not the least bit interested in why Fr. Feeney refused to go to Rome. I would have gone - I would have gladly gone. But that isn’t really germane.

The fact of the matter is, the Vatican did respond to the Father Feeney’s heretical teachings at the St. Benedict Center, and they severely rebuked Father Feeney in a letter to his ecclesial superior. The content of that Letter is what is germane. The Fathers of Vatican II referenced that letter in Lumen Gentium 16 so that there would be no mistake that the Fathers of Vatican II agreed with the contents of the Letter, and disageed with the false teaching of Father Feeney.

It is a tragedy that the heresy of Feeneyism is on the rise again among the far right Catholics. But that is only a sign of the times, I suppose. Pick and choose isn’t limited to only the liberal dissenters.
  • I don’t believe in “invicible ignorance.”*
Too bad for you. Again, why should any Catholic believe that your private interpretations of Church teaching are more authoritative than what Catholics receive from the Magisterium? Who made the Feeneyites the authoritative teaching body of the Catholic Church?
  • The Teaching Church has defined before that this means that no one can be saved outside the visible Church.*
Where has the Church ever said no one can be saved outside the visible Church? This is only your opinion, and not Church teaching. The OT saints were certainly saved outside of the **visible ** church. The Catholic Church is more than the Church Militant. The Catholic Church is also the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. It is quite true that there is no man in Heaven that is not part of the Church Triumphant. It is not true that a man living in invincible ignorance cannot be saved. That is something that only fundamentalist Protestants believe:

“I am sorry Morning Dove that you are upset. If your Sioux grandmother didn’t confess Jesus as her own personal Lord and Savior, then she is spending her eternity in Hell. What? You say that she never had the chance to confess Jesus because no one ever taught her the Gospel? I am sorry that God’s Word upsets you, but there are no exceptions – your beloved grandma is in Hell – and all the rest of your ancestors are too because they all died as unsaved pagans. Now quit your crying – God is love.”

The Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance is precisely what keeps the Catholic Church from falling into the meanness of Protestant fundamentalism.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Let me remind you of authentic Catholic teaching on this matter:

Pope St. Pius X:

***"The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council. … ***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.’ "

Was Fr. Feeney part of the Teaching or Learning Church? What about you? Do the non-magisterial opinions of the Learning Church overrule the authentic teaching of the Teaching Church?

You said:
Is this your opinion? Or has the Teaching Church formally taught this? If not, by what authority do you assert such a thing?
Click to expand...
As I wrote before:

The Teaching Church has defined before that this means that no one can be saved outside the visible Church. If a new interpretation is made, then there are two Teaching interpretations. Which, do you ask, should we follow? If you contend that this new Teaching is infallible (which it is not, as it is always presented under a fallible premise), then it contradicts previous Teaching Authority, showing that either neither is infallible or the newest is fallible, for the new cannot be infallible while the old “becomes” fallible. In that case, I would answer you question by stating that you are better off following the constant Tradition of the Church and the constant Teaching Authority rather than the new authority, for the new cannot be infallible unless the old is, as well. Therefore, you can never be following something that is fallible by following the old Teaching Authority. Also, I would consider it more likely that the pre-Modernism Teaching Authority would be more reliable.
 
Last time, EENS.

Please answer my question.
Do you believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur the guilt of mortal sin?
 
Matt16_18 said:
EENS
No, I am not the least bit interested in why Fr. Feeney refused to go to Rome. I would have gone - I would have gladly gone. But that isn’t really germane.

The fact of the matter is, the Vatican did respond to the Father Feeney’s heretical teachings at the St. Benedict Center, and they severely rebuked Father Feeney in a letter to his ecclesial superior. The content of that Letter is what is germane. The Fathers of Vatican II referenced that letter in Lumen Gentium 16 so that there would be no mistake that the Fathers of Vatican II agreed with the contents of the Letter, and disageed with the false teaching of Father Feeney.

It is a tragedy that the heresy of Feeneyism is on the rise again among the far right Catholics. But that is only a sign of the times, I suppose. Pick and choose isn’t limited to only the liberal dissenters.

I don’t believe in “invicible ignorance.”

Too bad for you. Again, why should any Catholic believe that your private interpretations of Church teaching are more authoritative than what Catholics receive from the Magisterium? Who made the Feeneyites the authoritative teaching body of the Catholic Church?

The Teaching Church has defined before that this means that no one can be saved outside the visible Church.

Where has the Church ever said no one can be saved outside the visible Church? This is only your opinion, and not Church teaching. The OT saints were certainly saved outside of the **visible **church. The Catholic Church is more than the Church Militant. The Catholic Church is also the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. It is quite true that there is no man in Heaven that is not part of the Church Triumphant. It is not true that a man living in invincible ignorance cannot be saved. That is something that only fundamentalist Protestants believe:

The Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance is precisely what keeps the Catholic Church from falling into the meanness of Protestant fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

There are over 100 posts on this topic. I have address everything you have stated in this post in one of those topics. I don’t have all day to type over and over what I am saying. As far as being in the visible Church: " We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." ABSOLUTELY neccessary means just that: absolute. God bless.
 
EENS:

I don’t believe in “invincible ignorance” saving a person.

Who’s arguing that?

Pope Pius IX didn’t hold to that position. Neither did Vatican II. All they taught was that those in invincible ignorance may be saved, not that they will be saved, and neither of them taught that invincible ignorance is the instrumental cause of salvation.

There’s a huge chasm between potentiality and actuality. It’s basic metaphysics.
 
40.png
Stylite:
Last time, EENS.

Please answer my question.
Do you believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur the guilt of mortal sin?
Click to expand...
Yes; however, as I said, there is no “invincible ignorance.” God gives everyone graces. Everyone is culpable for not following those graces, as far as they are given. Also, I made a response about a footnote in the Douay-Rheims Bible that sums it up. God bless.
 
40.png
EENS:
As I wrote before:

The Teaching Church has defined before that this means that no one can be saved outside the visible Church. If a new interpretation is made, then there are two Teaching interpretations. Which, do you ask, should we follow? If you contend that this new Teaching is infallible (which it is not, as it is always presented under a fallible premise), then it contradicts previous Teaching Authority, showing that either neither is infallible or the newest is fallible, for the new cannot be infallible while the old “becomes” fallible. In that case, I would answer you question by stating that you are better off following the constant Tradition of the Church and the constant Teaching Authority rather than the new authority, for the new cannot be infallible unless the old is, as well. Therefore, you can never be following something that is fallible by following the old Teaching Authority. Also, I would consider it more likely that the pre-Modernism Teaching Authority would be more reliable.
Click to expand...
The fallacy and point of contention being that there are two conflicting interpretations. 🙂

Kinda reminds me of the statements in Scripture regarding Jesus’s knowledge (“He grew in wisdom” vs. He is God and has all knowledge") it took several hundred years for the correct harmonization to be taught. Read Fr. Most’s “Consiousness of Christ” for all the broad and rigid texts on THAT matter. :eek:
 
40.png
EENS:
There are over 100 posts on this topic. I have address everything you have stated in this post in one of those topics. I don’t have all day to type over and over what I am saying. As far as being in the visible Church: " We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." ABSOLUTELY neccessary means just that: absolute. God bless.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we agree with that teaching. Everyone validly baptized and those in the Soul of the Church are “subject of the Roman Pontiff”. Read the teaching in context, especially the paragraphs prior which talk about the two swords, and reference Aquinas.
 
40.png
EENS:
Yes; however, as I said, there is no “invincible ignorance.” God gives everyone graces. Everyone is culpable for not following those graces, as far as they are given. Also, I made a response about a footnote in the Douay-Rheims Bible that sums it up. God bless.
Click to expand...
Thank you for agreeing.
Ok, if one does not have full knowledge and therefore does not incur mortal sin in some grave matter (which you agree could happen), what do you call that? 👍
 
40.png
EENS:
God puts men where he does for a reason. If God puts a man on a stranded island, He knows whether or not the man would have rejected Him and His Church anyway.
Click to expand...
Goodness, the lad sounds like a Calvinist. That could explain a lot. 😉
 
EENS,
One who is a member of the Church but rejects Her teaching is damned.
Click to expand...
To be precise, one who is baptised who dies in a state of mortal sin is damned. Formal heresy is indeed a mortal sin, but like EVERY mortal sin, it is merely venial unless there exists “**full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.” **

From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:
Q: **Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin? **
A: To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required **full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin. **
Click to expand...
And so, should a Heretic (or Catholic) whose Baptism is valid commit a mortal sin, and dies impenitent in their sin, they are damned. Yet, if the heretic lacks “full consciousness of the gravity of the matter” or “deliberate will to commit the sin”, the sin is venial and, while harmful to the soul, is damnable.
 
EENS,
I said, there is no “invincible ignorance.”
Click to expand...
Yet, Pope Pius IX said there are, and no pope after him has taught anything to the contrary. I’d say your opinion is trumped quite authoritatively. 🙂
 
If a new interpretation is made, then there are two Teaching interpretations.
Click to expand...
The important word above is ‘IF’.

You assert, based on nothing more than your private opinion and having cited no magisterial opinion to the contrary, that it was a new interpretation. It was not, according to the authentic magisterium, who ALONE has Divine authority to interpret Sacred Tradition.

Again, where’s the magisterial teaching to the contrary? Surely we ought not to go solely on private opinion of magisterial texts prior to Pius IX. That would be no more authoritative than Protestant opinion of Scripture and Tradition.
 
EENS,
pre-Modernism Teaching Authority would be more reliable.
Click to expand...
You are arguing in circles. Are you accusing the teaching of Pope Pius IX, Pius X, et. al. of being untrustworthy examples of modernism? Yes or no?

Instead of giving us your tap-dance, you’d be much more convincing if you were straight forward with what you assert. Otherwise, your position will continue in the minds of orthodox Catholics to be as unconvincing now as it was when Feeneyism was born in the heretical mind of Fr. Feeney.
 
Sine I have seen people bring up what St. Thomas Aquinas believed regarding invincible ignorance, please see here what he actually did believe, as Mr. Sparks documents all the findings:

romancatholicism.org/jlc.html.
 
Trad-Catholic,

You wouldn’t happen to be EENS by any chance? 🙂 If not, please accept my apologies.

Maybe you could answer my question about mortal sin. Do you agree that one must have full knowledge and consent to be guilty of a grave sin?
 
None of the suggested answers quite fit what I wanted to put–so I put the “believe in Christ” one, on the idea that even our separated brethren are members of the Catholic church, though imperfectly joined. I did like the one with the “invincible ignorance”–I just didn’t agree that one had to be formally and fully Catholic for God in His mercy to save us, otherwise Protestants couldn’t be saved. So, I’m sort of leaning more toward that one. On the other hand, there’s the idea of people of other faiths being saved by Christ even though they don’t know of Christ…so…no perfect answer was offered there…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top