Catholic Faction?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I don't understand, what flaws? The link contains only minimal commentary in favor of (in-context) quotes. The documents are the Church's teachings, and the teaching isn't Feeneyism.
As for what Feeney thought, try a Feeneyite website. The theology center he founded opperates one and there are many Feeneyite followers who have websites. In fact, Feeneyite sites started me on a search for the true Church (which I found isn't Feeneyism). I know of a few, but I don't want to post them here. They aren't hard to find though.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 31 2004, 08:27 PM'] Thanks for the link thedude. I understand what you all have been saying which was said in your link.

That said, I think your link should have touched more on why Feeny thought what
he did and why it is wrong. You showed how you think the Catholic Church must be right, but I still find flaws with what is said in the link and on here. So again, cool link, but some more on why he thought what he did would be better. [/quote]
Pinpoint some things specifically and we'll take it from there....

why don't you post what he (Feeny) thought and we'll post why he's wrong....I'm sure phatcatholic wasn't leading when ya'll were going in "circles"......

+JMJ
God Bless.

[megamattman1]

from what I've read, it seems dairygirl has a point. but it's controversial of course.

Edited September 2, 2004 by megamattman1

[Aloysius]

did you read thedude's artical?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]why don't you post what he (Feeny) thought and we'll post why he's wrong....I'm sure phatcatholic wasn't leading when ya'll were going in "circles"...... [/quote]

I'm sure phatcatholic will agree that we both just didn't understand what the other was saying. Actually I think he did most of the not understanding, but I'm willing to admit it was likely unclear on both sides. (we can look it up if you want) You have to understand how language works, and that means when it is effective and when it is not. (by works I don't mean as in effective.. this is an example of how language can be unclear unless we all decide to write legal dissertations) If you want to persist in your condescension, I will take on you or anyone here at intellectual challenges such academic research or even tests (such as IQ tests) to put you who insist on demoralizing me to a rest. (the one's who might be able to beat me, don't demoralize me luckily) I admit I don't make myself clear often times because I'm lazy or just make a mistake, but in fact we all don't, and at least I'm presenting new ideas instead of regurgitating old ones. But now that I'm through with that rant.


I will look into it. It's sad that you all as Catholics don't know why he thought what he did etc other than just saying he had pride. Unless there's evidence that that was actually the reason.

In general, the link and what everyone has shown is that many early church members believed non's and RCs (or actually memebers of the church, probably not really the Catholic Church, but for the sake of argument) can both be saved. It showed that important doctors believed that too. And it showed that recent councils and popes have believed that.

What it doesn't show is more detail into what was believed in the days when "no salvation" was promulgated. Perhaps the popes actually taught, maybe not with the offical words (though even possibly with encyclicals etc), but at least with the ordinary magisterium, that the strict view of "no salvation".

I'm pointing out that traditionalists and even many conservative catholics view VII on the matter as controversial. This is circumstantial proof that the ordinary magisterium may have taught that doctrine in the strict sense.

Proof as thedude and you all provided does offer some defense in general, but it doesn't really make the case where the controversy actually is, when the "no salvation" articles were promulgated. This is why more information is needed. And perhaps Feeny had information on this, that is why I asked. I assumed some of you might have the information because someone studied what I am asking about thoroughly.

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

why should Catholics know what a heretic taught??

St. Thomas Aquinas was around in the days of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus (as if they never ended, we are still in the days of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus, because it is a DOGMA of the Catholic Church) and so was Pope St. Pius X, he taught it! But they also taught about inculpable ignorance (a teaching that was around in the Catholic Church since the begining, of course!) and implicit/explicit membership in the Church.

If you want me to show you official teachings by the same Popes that made Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus dogmatic declarations, I'll admit you probably can't find them. why? because the question didn't come up. very simple.

we have provided evidence that it is a longstanding belief in the Catholic Church. now you have the challenge to show proof that it was taught AGAINST if you wish to make the assertion that it was a change.

we showed that it existed in Early Church times, in midieval times, and now. You need to show that it was taught against to defend your assertion that doctrine was changed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I want to point out that a lot of what I said in the last post about the doctors and some councils were just for the sake of argument. If you look at what the Augustine and Aq said (based on what is given), and even what Trent said, you can only deduce that those who wanted to be baptised could be saved, those who expressly wanted to be baptised. Not necessarily about those who have a desire to do God's will and are saved by desire in general. This is somewhat significant because it could lay the case for the "no salvation" popes to declare what they did.

The reason I let that go for the sake of argument is because I wanted to point out that we have evidence for salvation for both non and RC from the past (though probably not all of the evidence is at our disposal), we have some evidence from middle ages (I'm not sure if I know of any offhand, but for the sake of argument) but not from the era of the popes who wrote the "no salvation", and we have evidence from current days. This means that some popes may have taught different things.

And you need to know what the heretic said, because he might have pointed out how the Church contradicted itself.

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

all i know is that Feeny taught the rigorist interpretation of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus and his teaching was condemned by the Holy Office as not compatible with the Divine Catholic Fatih (mind you, this is before Vatican II that the Holy See is arguing against the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus)

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, the Creed Artical 9
[quote]27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the [b]implicit [/b]desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
[/quote]

The desire need not be explicit, show me anything from any point in the Church that teaches it must be explicit, cause i'm not seein it.

i cannot find this contradiction you speak of!... i've seen all the dogmatic proclamations of extra ecclesium nulla sallus as well as all the teaching the goes around it, and none of it contradicts that those who do not have a chance to receive the Gospel but have the unknown implicit desire of baptism and try to do God's will through the dictates of their conscience can be saved through Christ because of their imperfect union to the Church.
Fr. Feeny contradicts the Catholic Church, it is quite clear to me. show me how he doesn't contradict the Catholic Church. he taught that everyone without a visible connection to the Church is damned, and this is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches.

in fact, Catholics in midieval times (yep, right during the time you claim we held to the rigorist strict interpretation of EENS) considered ppl like Plato and Aristotle saints because they believed that if they had been given the chance they would have accepted Christ

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]in fact, Catholics in midieval times (yep, right during the time you claim we held to the rigorist strict interpretation of EENS) considered ppl like Plato and Aristotle saints because they believed that if they had been given the chance they would have accepted Christ[/quote]

are you sure those people weren't the people the Popes were speaking out against?


but here a few paragraphs down where it talks about Aq, he mentions how he must have taught salvation can be possible if you have not heard.
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ232.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ232.HTM[/url]

If that is the case, I'd agree that he taught as the Catholic Church does now.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairygirl, I appologize for coming in so late in the coversation, but if you' still interested, I think I have at least a somewhat relevant answer to your question.

Fr. Feeney was most certainly not the first person to teach the "rigorist" view of EENS. However, this does not mean that it was ever, as you posit in your initial post, taught by the ordinary Magisterium.

If we look at the history of the Church, even without doing deep research, we see that many heresies and false teachings come up again and again over the course of time. Gnosticism went through multiple forms and, in many ways, has sprung up again in the form of many New Age spiritualities. However, just because it has risen over and over again does not mean that it is correct, or that the Church ever taught it.

Thus, one can say with a relative degree of certainty that rigorists have always existed and, at certain times, have gained sway and power, however, it would be false to say that the Church ever taught or supported this stance.

I hope this helps, and I look forward to a response!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The infallible Papal "no salvation" statements, where you say the controversy occurs, were adressed at heretics* (New Catechism maintains heretics cannot be saved CCC 846), not the invincibly ignorant**. The tradition of the Church shows (as demonstrated in my link) that is has always been taught that these invincibly ignorant persons could attain salvation (although not all do, for other reasons).

* Heretic: One who knows the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation but still refuses to enter it.
** Invincibly ignorant: One who doesn't know the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation or hasn't even heard of the Gospel.

[HartfordWhalers]

"why should Catholics know what a heretic taught??"

I'm sorry, but I actually laughed at this. That is what people say of the "rightwing heretics", as if Fr. Feeney was even a heretic, but then we have to engage in "dialouge" with heretics on the left (protestants)? Moreover, I have read on here that you can't use the word "heretic"?? So is it that you can't call the protetsant revolutionaries and protestants heretics, but if he is a "rightwing dissenter" and "schismatic", then you can call him a heretic? (even though he never rejected a Church doctrine and merely held to Extra Ecclsiam Nulla Salus as defined by the Council of Trent?!)

...sorry, but since I myself am investigated the claims of Father Feeney (well I suppose not of Father Feeney himself, but the claims he believed that are actually the beliefs of the Church Fathers and Popes throughout history), I am partial to the bias of condmning "rightists" (if that is a word liberals use?), but then going to countless "dialouge" conferences and "ecumenical" days and even interreligious false worship of prayer at Assisi is perfectly logical? It is not at all. Why should we know what protestant heretics teach/taught, if we don't need to know what Father Feeney (the "heretic") taught?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

How is what the Council of Trent says on EENS in line with Fr. Feeney's interpratation of it?

[HartfordWhalers]

How is it not? The Council of Trent, from what I have read, states a necessity of Baptism. That is in the Canons for Baptism. How is that not what Father Feeney taught?

[Aloysius]

Fr. Feeney's teachings were defined as Heresy by the Holy Office

[quote]From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

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.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

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 (<Denzinger>, 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, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (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.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

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, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

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.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, 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.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

(Pope Pius XII personally approved this letter.)

[/quote]

he was later excommunicated for disciplinary reasons. his excommunication was lifted but the condemnation of his treaching remains.

The Council of Trent
[quote]Session Six, Chapter Four:
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

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.



Session Seven, On the Sacraments in General, Canon IV:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, [b]or without the desire thereof[/b], men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

[/quote]

The Summa, The Catechism of St. Pius X, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the early Church fathers and the teaching of the Magisterium in general are all contrary to Fr. Feeney's rigorist interpretation of EENS.