When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]My question to you guys is: Do you not agree, at least, with Hananiah that it is acceptable and a permissible option for Catholics to hold that Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation (often termed "Feeneyism") provided that these people acknowledge that the Church is infallible, etc, and do not pretend that the Church has somehow erred with the CCC, etc (like me)?[/quote]
No because Feeneyism was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, long before the New Catechism. See below:
[quote][b]Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):[/b]
"It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God."
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT[/url][/quote]
Pope Pius XII also condemned Feeneyism in a letter to the Bishop where Fr. Feeney lived (he even personally checked the English translation).

Feeney was excommunicated in 1953 for disciplinary reasons, not his teaching. Thus when his excommunication was lifted, the condemnation of his teaching was not (Feeneyites try to use the lifting of his excommunication as justification for following his doctrine). If you want to read the entire letter from the Holy Office in 1949, check out Apotheoun's post:
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=15364&st=25#"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=15364&st=25#[/url]

And the Council of Trent on Justification:
[quote]From the Sacred Council of Trent, the Sixth Session, 13 January 1547, The Decree on Justification, chapter 4:  "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, [b]or the desire thereof[/b], as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." [Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, chapter 4][/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

THis letter needs to go to the apologetics board.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I must agree with thedude. As I have stated before, the Magisterium teaches in all that it does, and the letter quoted is a definitive statement of the Holy See and, as such, is an exercising of the teaching authority of the Church.

I know that many teachings are difficult to accept, but I sincerely pray that you will not follow the lead of those people who left Christ because "these are hard teachings." We live in a secular and materialistic age in which people proclaim it to be wrong to trust anything other than one's own intellect. But remember the words of Saint Ignatius Loyola, "We should be predisposed to accept white as black and black as white if the Magisterium proclaims it as such."

This being true, I hope that the explanation that I have provided of the Council of Trent's position on it, in conjunction with the clearly defined statement of the Holy Office towards Feenyism, is enough to put your mind at ease. It is a very hard thing to humbly approach all issues from the standpoint of the Magisterium, but I pray you will be able to do just that, and accept the Church's teaching.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[catholicguy]

Father Feeney's teaching was not condemned by the Church. It was condemned by a Bishop (who happened to be a Modernist), but that is beside the point. His teaching was never declared erroneous by any authoritative teaching of the Church [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]or otherwise. Heretics are not accepted into the Church (regardless of the reason for their excommunication). Heretics are excommunicated from the Church; they certainly are not accepted back into the Church (regardless of the reason for excommunication) without recanting. Rather than recanting, he was forced to say the Athanasian Creed which states: "Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.", that is, "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." This is deceptive to say the least that the Church would require this profession to be made. Further, the previous argument stands: the Church does not allow heretics to be free-roamers as if they have some right to be in the Church because they are baptized. Heretics are excommunicated, not brought back into the Church. God bless.

The thing that still is mindboggling is that this is explicitly taught by decrees of Councils, etc, but there is no explicit decree asserting these other "baptisms". They are speculative theology at best. If the Church does not explicitly teach it, it is not required to believe it. Is this not true?

[crusader1234]

I think the key thing here is recanting and confessing.

Are you a member of SSPX? I get that vibe.

[catholicguy]

Exactly. He neither recanted nor confessed anything other than Church teaching and what he had always taught (e.g., Athanasian Creed). I am not a member of SSPX. The SSPX's official stance denies [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [/i](at least this "interpretation" of it). I go to an FSSP Parish. I am going to FSSP Seminary once I finish my education requirements (I hope; it is already very backed up since so many men want to join).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read this article from head to toe and tell me what you think of it:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT[/url]

[XIX]

I think that is a little bit too much reading for a Friday!

But I did read it. I noticed that the broad views of salvation were voiced mostly in more recent years, while the narrow views were exclusively from the year 1302 on back. So another question arises: should we put more credence into the what the Church said first, or what it said most recently?

The article also makes a good point by pointing out the context in which the earlier, narrow views were voiced.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There were broad views of salvation voiced by the Early Church Fathers in that article too. Dating back to before 200 AD.

[catholicguy]

Obviously we should go with what is earlier, since what is later is not "defined" by the Church. If it was taught earlier (1302 and back, which is a completely incorrect date...Council of Florence was after 1302), that means it was taught by Christ, Who happened to live before 1302. In any event, the first is dogma, the second is speculative theology at best, heresy at worst. I didn't click that link, but I'm SURE it's Fr. Most. Anything he says constitutes Ex Cathedra around these parts. God bless.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 16 2004, 01:31 PM'] There were broad views of salvation voiced by the Early Church Fathers in that article too. Dating back to before 200 AD. [/quote]
Even if that is so, what did Christ Himself teach: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (St. John III. 5) He again stated: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (St. Mark XVI. 16) What more evidence do we need than the infallible declaration of the Church that what Our Lord stated is to be understood that "no man, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? What more evidence can be shown to make null and void the Word of God Incarnate Himself?

[cmotherofpirl]

Validly baptised christians are part of the Catholic Church, whether they know it or not.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Obviously we should go with what is earlier, since what is later is not "defined" by the Church. If it was taught earlier (1302 and back, which is a completely incorrect date...Council of Florence was after 1302), that means it was taught by Christ, Who happened to live before 1302.[/quote]
But saying that the Church of 1302 knew Christ and the current one does not would mean that the Church has lost its Apostolic authority. And this logic would disclude the Council of Trent and mean Martin Luther knew Christ better than John Paul II. Mary as Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptorix is not "defined" by the Church, but that doesn't mean we are allowed to disbelieve it. Infallibility wasn't defined until Vatican I, but that doesn't mean that the Pope wasn't infallible prior to 1870.

[quote]Even if that is so, what did Christ Himself teach: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (St. John III. 5) He again stated: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (St. Mark XVI. 16) What more evidence do we need than the infallible declaration of the Church that what Our Lord stated is to be understood that "no man, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? What more evidence can be shown to make null and void the Word of God Incarnate Himself?[/quote]
But he is obviously talking about those who have heard the Gospel. Feeneyism teaches that a person on an island unknown to the Christian world (and thus ignorant of the message of Jesus) will perish. The doctrine basically says that if God wanted them to be saved, he would tell them to build a boat and sail to the Vatican to be evangelized.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Catholicguy, your position is too precariously based to be a legitimately catholic one. In the one hand you support yourself by the infallible statements of particular councils, but in the other hand you deny the teaching and interpretive authority of the Church. You must understand that we as catholics are [i]not[/i] allowed to "just believe those things taught infallibly and personally interpret everything else." In fact, we have been explicitly told not to. Everything that the Magisterium teaches should be accepted by the laity with humble minds and hearts, and with faith in the teaching of the Church. Individual interpretations such as your own are only "allowed" insofar as they do not contradict ANY of the teachings of the church, "infallible" or otherwise.

Also, from a pure critique of apologetics, your argument is greatly hindered by the fact that you blindly disregard anything written by a particular person (like, for example, Fr. Most). We do not do the same with Fr. Feeney, although we have a much greater reason to do so.

All of your questions have been addressed. If you deem them, in your infinite wisdom, to be unacceptable, and so, with your authority, deem the teachings of the church as it regards baptism of blood and desire - and membership in the Body of Christ as a whole - as untenable, you stand in opposition to the Church and its interpretive authority, and, as a result, have no different a grounding than a Protestant in this particular matter.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff