Feeneyite methodology: a question

On the Sensible Bond blog, there is an interesting piece called “SSPX methodology: a question for Bishop Williamson” that identifies the flawed logic and methodology of the SSPX. I think many Feeneyites are guilty of these same flaws in how they approach the authority and teachings of the Church.

As such, I have taken the liberty of modifying the extracted text somewhat, chiefly by replacing “SSPX” and “Bishop Williamson” with “Feeneyites” and by making other minor changes in order to demonstrate how this flawed methodology is not peculiar to the SSPX alone; we find it in the arguments of may Traditionalists and Feeneyites alike.

With apologies in advance to “Ches” (author), here are the modified extracts from his article:

Feenyites often make the argument that Rome can only survive by returning to the Truth of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - a Truth to which the Feeneyites have been faithful.

While there is some truth to this in the same way that there are abuses and neglect of other traditional doctrines and disciplines, my view is that what Feeneyites confuse are the teachings of the Catholic Church and their own theological arguments (which deploy those teachings). Let's take the example the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. When it is said that VC2 and the CCC express a new Faith, a Faith which is not the Traditional Faith (See, for example, the charges of heterodoxy against the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the outright rejection of the CCC's teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire), it is somehow thought that this position can be suitably justified through a dogmatic analysis of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the dogmatic pronouncements on the necessity of water baptism. Since they judge there to be no consistency between these dogmatic pronouncements and current teachings, they believe this to be a sufficient proof (backed up by the decline in Catholicism in the West) of the latter's lack of Catholicity, regardless of what anyone else, including Rome, says.

Indeed, the results of their analysis and the dogmatic premises on which they are constructed are what Feeneyites call 'Catholic Truth'. When they says that Rome must recognize Catholic Truth and be faithful to it, what they clearly imply is that since there is no questioning of the dogmatic premises on which the Feenyites build their criticism of the Church's oft stated understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Baptism as reflected in the teachings of VC2, the CCC and other recent magisterial and official documents, the edifice of their analysis is itself absolutely sound.

But this position is both logically and methodologically unstable.

Methodologically, this position is weak because the Feeneyites who have generated it appear ultimately unwilling to be moderated either by the criticism of their peers or by the judgment of the Church's authorities.

We have a crisis in the Church and lots of grave problems. Not everyone agrees with this view, but a lot of sensible people do. The problem is, then: whose reading of the problems should be our guiding light? And which experts can we trust? In the end there is no escaping the conclusion that every “expert” who is not willing to have his position moderated by Rome is not in fact serving any truth but his own; in the end, it is ironic that making the pastoral Magisterium of the Hierarchy {especially that of the chief pastor} subject to the Magisterium of the Experts involves exactly the kind of modernist assumption that Feeneyites have declared themselves opposed to.

If Feeneyites care about the Truth, as indeed I believe they do deeply, they must ultimately admit that there is a real distinction in re between the teachings of the Church and the results of the analyses by Feeneyite “experts”. Sadly I see no sign of this distinction starting to dawn on them or on any of their colleagues. Let me hereby challenge them respectfully to address the argument.

Unlike a lot of people, I happen to think there is a place for the Feeneyite mainstream, banging their big bass drums for all they are worth. They just have to realise that the percussion section cannot be a law unto itself, and that moving from a march to a waltz does not constitute the abandonment of rhythm.

[END. Extracts taken and modified from http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html]

MRyan nice strawman argument

We have a crisis in the Church and lots of grave problems. Not everyone agrees with this view, but a lot of sensible people do. The problem is, then: whose reading of the problems should be our guiding light? And which experts can we trust? In the end there is no escaping the conclusion that every “expert” who is not willing to have his position moderated by Rome is not in fact serving any truth but his own; in the end, it is ironic that making the pastoral Magisterium of the Hierarchy {especially that of the chief pastor} subject to the Magisterium of the Experts involves exactly the kind of modernist assumption that Feeneyites have declared themselves opposed to.

I think "Ches'" methodology is every bit as flawed as his analysis of the SSPX/Feeneyism position which he puts forward.
He asks, "Which experts can we trust?" and says that every expert must be willing to be moderated by Rome, forgetting that Rome too must be moderated by the dogmatic declarations of her predecessors all of which (the dogmas) pertain to the sacred deposit of faith.
As he correctly points out there is an inconsistancy between V2 and the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Unfortunately nowhere has the present Church Heirarchy showed where in fact Fr Feeney was wrong in his interpretation of the dogma and (although Fr Feeney would not have been aware of this) there has never been an explanation of how the Church "subsisting" squares with the 2000 yr understanding of the Churches position regarding this.
It would appear that the more time goes by, the more Fr Feeney is found justified in his defence of traditrional understandings.

Pope Paul VI, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1976: “Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.”

Rome too must be moderated by the dogmatic declarations of her predecessors all of which (the dogmas) pertain to the sacred deposit of faith.

Ah yes, the guarantor of the faith must be moderated by the dogmatic declarations of the prior guarantors - now follow this because this is key - as interpreted by the vigilante theologians who now safeguard the deposit of the faith, for the Holy Ghost has departed the See and we are in the free for all of post-Vatican II, where Peter's faith has failed and the sheep must feed themselves, and indeed protect the flock from the shepherd.

Father Feeney always looked to Pius XII for his justification, and I doubt very much he would think Rome or the universal Magisterium united with its head could ever need "moderation" by the rank and file. I wonder about the reaction of Father Feeney if he were confronted with the CCC, affirmed as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith by a successor of Peter. His battle was against an American hierarchy that is still plagued with rot and a lot of muddle - just listen to Michael Voris as he tracks the current peregrinations of some of our bishops and their minions into borderline apostasy and heresy.

But I dare say that Father Feeney would affirm that the faith of Peter's successor could not fail, and I imagine he might surprise a few of his current followers as to his view of how they handle the teachings of Peter's successors. After all, he said he would adopt baptism of desire in a heartbeat if a successor of Peter gave it his sanction.

We've been through this:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its section on Baptism: 'The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.' (7) This is a perfect summary of Father Feeney's position on the absolute necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation; it is almost as if he wrote it himself."

As for the three infallible definitions, per the First Vatican Council, theologians are to understand those definitions when they were defined and not at a later time. Father Brian Harrison pointed this out.

If you read the article in the second post to this thread, it is clear that we can interpret Vatican II as not teaching that non-Catholics can be saved as non-Catholics but only as Catholics, so for us at least, that is the only acceptable interpretation of Vatican II.

tornpage wrote:

Pope Paul VI, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1976: “Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.”

Rome too must be moderated by the dogmatic declarations of her predecessors all of which (the dogmas) pertain to the sacred deposit of faith.

Ah yes, the guarantor of the faith must be moderated by the dogmatic declarations of the prior guarantors - now follow this because this is key - as interpreted by the vigilante theologians who now safeguard the deposit of the faith, for the Holy Ghost has departed the See and we are in the free for all of post-Vatican II, where Peter's faith has failed and the sheep must feed themselves, and indeed protect the flock from the shepherd.

Father Feeney always looked to Pius XII for his justification, and I doubt very much he would think Rome or the universal Magisterium united with its head could ever need "moderation" by the rank and file. I wonder about the reaction of Father Feeney if he were confronted with the CCC, affirmed as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith by a successor of Peter. His battle was against an American hierarchy that is still plagued with rot and a lot of muddle - just listen to Michael Voris as he tracks the current peregrinations of some of our bishops and their minions into borderline apostasy and heresy.

But I dare say that Father Feeney would affirm that the faith of Peter's successor could not fail, and I imagine he might surprise a few of his current followers as to his view of how they handle the teachings of Peter's successors. After all, he said he would adopt baptism of desire in a heartbeat if a successor of Peter gave it his sanction.

I agree with duckbill strawman arguments: "Peter's Faith will not fail" Who has claimed Peter's Faith has failed?

You and MRyan's way of thinking leads to Sedivicantism because you think if you admit the "Feeneyite" position could be right, that that would make the Pope a heretic because you both elevate directives, theological speculation to infallible status! Your saying that anything that comes out of the Vatican is infallible, when that is not claimed by the Pope himself.

Did the Church OK 4 "Feeneyite" groups and give them the freedom to hold a strict understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Yes!

"In our[Fr. Deery canonical vicar and the Bishop of Worcester] discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict
interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views." ( quoted from the official letter of the diocese of Worcester)http://www.scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney


It is clear the Church’s acceptance of these communities, pastoral and canonical, that the Church considers their theological position as valid and an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( excluding Sedes of course).

Why do you both insist ignoring the 10000 pound Gorilla in the room? 4 approved communities!!

Don't insist on spinning things to make people think that "Feeneyites" are in the same position as SSPX. Do you claim the FSSP are in the same position as SSPX? No, because they are not and have been aloud to practice the Traditional Rite and are approved of by the Church.

So you're saying the the CCC is infallible? And is a higher authority than defined dogmas?
By saying "we can hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism" is the CCC heretical because the Holy office already ruled there is no solid foundation for such an opinion:
Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958 provided as follows:

"The
practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of
Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature--a
practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning
the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy
Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as
possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the
fulfillment of this obligation."

MRyan and yourself have already shown your inconsistency in the Limbo vs baptism of desire thread.

Being deceptive with scarecrow arguments is not helping your positions.

Who has claimed Peter's Faith has failed?

If it is necessary for Rome to be "moderated" by what was said by the predecessors in her seat, then the faith of Rome has failed, or indeed is subject to failure. This is contrary to the guarantee. Yet this is the implication of the need for "moderation" - Rome can't be trusted, but has to be watched and corrected. The guarantee is worthless apparently.

Did the Church OK 4 "Feeneyite" groups and give them the freedom to hold a strict understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

No one gave any Catholic group the authority to reject the teaching of the CCC. You could maintain any position, maintain it's a "strict understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," and say that therefore it has been approved. This is nonsense. What has been approved? I know what hasn't been approved: the rejection of baptism of desire (as the Magisterium has adopted it) or the pertinent statements on baptism of desire and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus of the CCC.

Why do you both insist ignoring the 10000 pound Gorilla in the room? 4 approved communities!!

We don't - we just don't read into this approval an approval of positions that are contrary to what is expressed as the Catholic faith by the Magisterium, as is the view that baptism of desire could not be salvific.

So you're saying the the CCC is infallible? And is a higher authority than defined dogmas?

No.

By saying "we can hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism" is the CCC heretical?

No. And I won't repeat arguments that have already been advanced on these issues. If you want to pop in and comment on a discussion between people who have been going back and forth on this for weeks - read the threads.

cowboy wrote:
You and MRyan's way of thinking leads to Sedivicantism because you think if you admit the "Feeneyite" position could be right, that that would make the Pope a heretic because you both elevate directives, theological speculation to infallible status! Your saying that anything that comes out of the Vatican is infallible, when that is not claimed by the Pope himself.

I already answered this specious example of muddled thinking, false analogies, misrepresentation of arguments, and classic logical fallacies, not to mention “straw man” arguments.

How can you repeatedly take no cognizance of our responses to your fallacious charges and simply regurgitate those same charges? Where, but in your deluded mind, has either Tornpage or myself said or even implied that magisterial directives and non-defined teachings are “infallible”? Where have either of us said or even implied that “anything that comes out of the Vatican is infallible”?

Your misrepresentation of what is actually presented is simply appalling.

Duckbill posts a picture of himself as if the “straw man” charge is self-evident, when he cannot be bothered to answer the arguments. He has no argument because he cannot stay on topic and misrepresents the arguments almost as badly as you.

Jehanne posts a link to a lengthy St. Benedict Center article as if that is supposed to answer the “question” posed in the opening post. He then makes the usual comments on what Fr. Feeney really believed that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Columba challenges the lead article by throwing out the usual mantra of “Rome too must be moderated by the dogmatic declarations of her predecessors all of which (the dogmas) pertain to the sacred deposit of faith”, and, as Tornpage said, this is precisely what the lead article is all about – the Faith of the Church being subject to “the Magisterium of the Experts” whose fallible interpretations of the dogmas of the Faith become the “rule of faith” for Rome who must “convert” to the understanding of the “Experts” who are in possession of the “true Faith”.

How many times have we seen a Feenyite cite a dogmatic declaration on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or on Baptism and in no uncertain terms tell us that Rome/the Magisterium is WRONG in her understanding of the dogma as she presents it in her official magisterial documents?

How many times have we seen someone from the SSPX cite a previous pontifical declaration on Religious Liberty, for example, while stating in no uncertain terms that the Church's current Magisterial teaching is WRONG?

And you have the audacity to say:

cowboy wrote:Don't insist on spinning things to make people think that "Feeneyites" are in the same position as SSPX. Do you claim the FSSP are in the same position as SSPX? No, because they are not and have been aloud to practice the Traditional Rite and are approved of by the Church.

So, unlike the SSPX, if a group or society is “approved by the Church” (which the St. Benedict Center NH is not), it is OK for that group or society to openly “deny and reject” what the Church presents to the faithful as “sure and authentic” doctrines of the Church by appealing to “former magisteriums” and former “dogmatic pronouncements” that “prove” that Rome of the 21st century is in “error” and subject to being reformed by the “Magisterium of the Experts”?

Hey Cowboy, I challenge you to go to the websites of the approved splinter groups of the St. Benedict Center and demonstrate where a single one of them has openly advocated the outright “denial and rejection” of the Church's official teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood as represented in the CCC. Go ahead ... let's see if you have any idea of what I have been arguing, or what you are talking about.

It is one thing to maintain belief in one's allowed opinion, it is quite another to “deny and reject” the official magisterial teachings of the Church.

The fact is, Cowboy, you have no idea what you are talking about and you can no more follow an argument than you can know what the Church actually teaches with respect to Limbo and the hope of salvation for infants (or anything else for that matter).

You say the most outrageous things that are insulting to the intellect, not to mention insulting to the arguments put forward in defense of the Church's teachings. Prime example:

cowboy wrote:Did the Church OK 4 "Feeneyite" groups and give them the freedom to hold a strict understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Yes!

WHO CARES, and what does this STRAW MAN have to do with the subject at hand and how many times must I address this non-argument? The question is NOT whether Feeneyites are allowed to hold a “strict” interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (of course they are), the question is whether certain Feeneyites, in holding such a position, are justified in “denying and rejecting” the Church's authentic and magisterial teaching on invisible incorporation through the bonds of Faith and Charity, on justification through the same, and whether they can be justified in rejecting her Magisterial teaching that declares that she has always held and still holds that baptism of desire and baptism of blood as authentic, sure and true doctrines of the Church.

To refresh your short-term memory, here is the “question”:

“In the end there is no escaping the conclusion that every “expert” who is not willing to have his position moderated by Rome is not in fact serving any truth but his own; in the end, it is ironic that making the pastoral Magisterium of the Hierarchy {especially that of the chief pastor} subject to the Magisterium of the Experts involves exactly the kind of modernist assumption that Feeneyites have declared themselves opposed to.”

The responses from the resident Feenyites thus far have only confirmed that they still don't “get it” and choose instead to throw their own “straw man” arguments on the wall without ever addressing the real issues - religious submission of the mind and will; whether open dissent to the Magisterial teachings of the Church can be justified (and if so, on what grounds), and whether Rome is subject to the “Magisterium of the Feeneyite Experts” who maintain that Rome has deviated from the true meaning of her own dogmas.

I have maintained all along that one can hold a strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus while remaining submissive to the Magisterium, at least with respect to the assent of the will to the authority of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens), if not of the intellect because of some perceived “conflict”. But, an intellect that closes itself off from “moderation” by the Church; an intellect (and will) that “rejects” her authority to TEACH her own understanding of doctrine (because her teaching is in “error”) by suggesting that the Church has got it all wrong and has been wrong for quite some time on the “true” meaning of her own doctrines and dogmas, is not an intellect that is an harmony with a submissive will, let alone with the Church.

One does not have to “agree” with every non-defined teaching of the Church, but one is obligated to conform one's mind and will to her authority and to her teachings, with the appropriate submission, even when making an allowance for a withholding of the assent of the intellect when a perceived conflict cannot be resolved in the mind of the Catholic whose will remains submissive to the authority of the Ecclesia docens.

I have also been at pains to demonstrate the clear distinction between the assent of faith and submission of the mind and will, a distinction that is deliberately misrepresented at every turn by those who believe they have a right to “assent” only to what the Church has revealed and defined, with everything else being up for grabs and open to the fallible interpretation of the “Magisterium of the Experts”.

But I am not going to ask you if you understand such a distinction when it is clear that such a distinction is totally beyond your limited comprehension.

cowboy wrote:So you're saying the the CCC is infallible? And is a higher authority than defined dogmas?

You are incorrigible.

By saying "we can hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism" is the CCC heretical because the Holy office already ruled there is no solid foundation for such an opinion:

Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958 provided as follows:

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature—a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation."

MRyan and yourself have already shown your inconsistency in the Limbo vs baptism of desire thread.

And you have shown yourself to be totally incompetent in addressing all such matters.

PAY ATTENTION: Has the CCC suggested, given the “hope” of salvation for un-baptized infants, while also recognizing that the Church knows of no means other than Baptism that can assure their salvation, that she is somehow OK with “The practice … of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature … which can be justified based on the alleged FACT that the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism now has a “solid foundation”?

If so, why does the same CCC teach in the same paragraph the urgency of having infants baptized?

And you ask me if the CCC is “heretical” because YOU suggest that it is opposed to a ruling of the Holy Office that condemns the practice of delaying the conferral of Baptism based on some false opinion “lacking solid foundation” that assures the salvation of un-baptized infants?

How does one get through to someone like you?

cowboy wrote:Being deceptive with scarecrow arguments is not helping your positions.

Yeah, keep it up – your total incompetency is most revealing and only helps my arguments.

Let me see if I have this right.

The Feeneyite wildcard seems to be the regularization of certain communities who hold baptism of desire to be erroneous theological speculation, which any Catholic is free to reject. This doctrinal position is allowable, the said regularization being the final proof.

Have I got it?

Roguejim wrote:Let me see if I have this right.

The Feeneyite wildcard seems to be the regularization of certain communities who hold baptism of desire to be erroneous theological speculation, which any Catholic is free to reject. This doctrinal position is allowable, the said regularization being the final proof.

Have I got it?

No. The declarations of Carthage, Lateran IV, Pope Boniface, and Florence are infallible, and hence, irreformable, per the First Vatican Council. They must only be understood when they were defined, that is, when the documents were signed and promulgated. This, for us, is absolutely non-negotiable. In light of these absolute dogmas, I do not give a damn what the current CCC says or what Pope Benedict says. We strive to understand them as they were defined, no more, no less.

Having said that, here are our options:

1) Reconcile, the best we can, the CCC, Vatican II, etc. were the aforementioned infallible dogmas. That is what the late Brother Thomas Mary, in the article posted above, tried to do, and his "understanding" was approved, explicitly, by the CDF.

2) Simply accept the fact that the present Magisterium is teaching error, CCC and all.

3) Become sedes and go on professing the Catholic Faith "whole and inviolate."

Jehanne wrote:

Roguejim wrote:Let me see if I have this right.

The Feeneyite wildcard seems to be the regularization of certain communities who hold baptism of desire to be erroneous theological speculation, which any Catholic is free to reject. This doctrinal position is allowable, the said regularization being the final proof.

Have I got it?

No. The declarations of Carthage, Lateran IV, Pope Boniface, and Florence are infallible, and hence, irreformable, per the First Vatican Council. They must only be understood when they were defined, that is, when the documents were signed and promulgated. This, for us, is absolutely non-negotiable. In light of these absolute dogmas, I do not give a damn what the current CCC says or what Pope Benedict says. We strive to understand them as they were defined, no more, no less.

I rest my case.

Never mind what the Church says, "We strive to understand them as they were defined, no more, no less".

Jehanne doesn't give a damn how the popes and the Church understand and present the Church's understanding of the dogma, he abides by that understanding as it was "once declared', as if the "Magisterium of the Experts" ("We") are in possession of the "true meaning" (no more, no less), while the Church and the Roman Pontiff appear to be in error.

Jehanne wrote:Having said that, here are our options:

1) Reconcile, the best we can, the CCC, Vatican II, etc. were the aforementioned infallible dogmas. That is what the late Brother Thomas Mary, in the article posted above, tried to do, and his "understanding" was approved, explicitly, by the CDF.

2) Simply accept the fact that the present Magisterium is teaching error, CCC and all.

3) Become sedes and go on professing the Catholic Faith "whole and inviolate."

Your comments and option 1 are not consistent. Br. Thomas Mary never said what you said, and neither does he address the Church's current teaching on required submission of the mind and will to non-defined authentic teachings of the Church.

This is the same Br. Thomas Mary who said that Fr. Feeney would submit immediately to the Pope if he ever "said" that baptism of desire is an authentic teaching of the Church.

Where is that submission by the so-called spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney?

Option 2 is favored among the Feeneyites on this forum.

Option 3 is a joke.

MRyan wrote:Your comments and option 1 are not consistent. Br. Thomas Mary never said what you said, and neither does he address the Church's current teaching on required submission of the mind and will to non-defined authentic teachings of the Church.

This is the same Br. Thomas Mary who said that Fr. Feeney would submit immediately to the Pope if he ever "said" that baptism of desire is an authentic teaching of the Church.

Where is that submission by the so-called spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney?

Option 2 is favored among the Feeneyites on this forum.

Option 3 is a joke.

You are a poor historian, MRyan. For Father Feeney and his followers, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Baptism of Desire & Blood were two separate issues. Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not published until five years (1952) after the Boston "heresy" case. Yes, Father Feeney said that he would submit to the Pope if Baptism of Desire was ever defined, but he also said that he thought it was "impossible" that the Pope would ever define "salvation outside of the Church." But, yes, on Baptism of Desire & Blood, he would accept a solemn Magisterial definition on those, and so would I. However, Catechisms & books by Popes do not "stack up" against solemn definitions that the Magisterium has made in the past. The tools to understand these definitions are principally historical, and then, theological. How did theologians, living at the time, understand the defined dogmas?

I do not buy the "required submission of the mind and will to non-defined authentic teachings of the Church" with respect to dogmas that Holy Mother Church has already defined. As for Option 3 being a joke, maybe for you, but not for me. If the Pope would come out tomorrow and deny the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, would you think that he was still Catholic and still Pope? IMO, his recent comments about preaching the Gospel to Jews certainly pushes him in that direction. Whether he has "crossed the line" or not, I cannot yet tell.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Your comments and option 1 are not consistent. Br. Thomas Mary never said what you said, and neither does he address the Church's current teaching on required submission of the mind and will to non-defined authentic teachings of the Church.

This is the same Br. Thomas Mary who said that Fr. Feeney would submit immediately to the Pope if he ever "said" that baptism of desire is an authentic teaching of the Church.

Where is that submission by the so-called spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney?

Option 2 is favored among the Feeneyites on this forum.

Option 3 is a joke.

You are a poor historian, MRyan. For Father Feeney and his followers, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Baptism of Desire & Blood were two separate issues. Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not published until five years (1952) after the Boston "heresy" case. Yes, Father Feeney said that he would submit to the Pope if Baptism of Desire was ever defined, but he also said that he thought it was "impossible" that the Pope would ever define "salvation outside of the Church."

There you go again on one of your silly irrelevant tangents as if A) I did not know when Bread of Life was published and the reasons for Fr. Feeney's excommunication; and B) You carry on as if this has some relevancy to the discussion at hand - when it is completely irrelevant.

More stuff on the wall and more distractions - good for you - we're all impressed.

But, if you are going to tell us what Br. Sennott actually said about Fr. Feeney, why don't you quote him accurately? I repeat, he did not say that "Father Feeney said that he would submit to the Pope if Baptism of Desire was ever defined", rather, he said this:

"Father Feeney's opinion on the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, which developed only after his condemnation, was never the subject of reporter's questions. But if a reporter had asked, 'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.'

And this is precisely what Pope Pius XII "said" in his very official Allocution to mid-wives, and this is precisely what the CCC (approved and ordered for publication by Pope JPII) "said" where it teaches quite clearly that:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

One more time:

But if a reporter had asked, 'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.'

So please show us where Fr. Feeney said he would submit only if a pope "defined" baptism of desire for the catechumen?

Are you now the official "interpreter" for Br. T. M. Sennott since you are obviously so well-versed in the history of Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center?

Jehanne wrote:But, yes, on Baptism of Desire & Blood, he would accept a solemn Magisterial definition on those, and so would I.

That's mighty "Catholic" of you that you would actually accept a solemn magisterial definitive; but you don't give a damn about anything a pope might actually teach (that does not pass your "litmus test") through his official modes of magisterial transmission for the teaching the very Faith he has been entrusted to protect and to pass on as the "guarantor" of its orthodoxy.

Jehanne wrote:However, Catechisms & books by Popes do not "stack up" against solemn definitions that the Magisterium has made in the past. The tools to understand these definitions are principally historical, and then, theological. How did theologians, living at the time, understand the defined dogmas?

The primary "tool" for understanding is the authentic, living and permanent Magisterium of the Church, and not your private interpretation otherwise known as the "Magisterium of the Experts". How prior theologians understood the dogma is the same as current theologians understand the dogma - its essential meaning cannot change. However, a deeper understanding of the same dogma may develop that does not contradict or change the meaning of the dogma.

Baptism is STILL necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, and the Church has always understood the dogma in this same manner. Baptism of desire does not change its meaning as the Church has always understood it.

Jehanne wrote:I do not buy the "required submission of the mind and will to non-defined authentic teachings of the Church" with respect to dogmas that Holy Mother Church has already defined.

We know, you don't give a damn what the Church teaches if it is not a solemn definition or it does not jive with your private interpretation of the dogma.

You are only proving the validity of the opening post. You know, the "straw man" mocked by "Duckbill".

Jehanne wrote:As for Option 3 being a joke, maybe for you, but not for me. If the Pope would come out tomorrow and deny the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, would you think that he was still Catholic and still Pope?

Don't you know that one faction of the "Magisterium of the Experts" has already tried to pin Pope JPII with denying "the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ"? That didn't work, either. And, if the Pope would come out tomorrow and deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that would sure get your attention as well. Hey, ya just never know. It's not like Peter was promised a never-failing faith or anything, or, that the guidance promised by our Lord is not what VCI infallibly declared it to be; you know, that it has never left Peter is with him still today.

What silly nonsense when compared to the "Magisterium of the Experts".

Jehanne wrote:IMO, his recent comments about preaching the Gospel to Jews certainly pushes him in that direction. Whether he has "crossed the line" or not, I cannot yet tell.

Sure it does, Pope Benedict XVI as a living breathing manifest heretic whose private "opinions" on eschatology and God's salvific plans for the Jews are indeed troubling - but that does not make him a heretic except to those who are predisposed to shove him through the door.

Well, it's good to see that you would become a sede if the Pope denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. And yes, I would not "give a damn" if the Pope ever embraced such a modernistic heresy; doing so would, at most, cause me not to lose my Faith but simply to withdraw, probably permanently, any communion with him. Realize, of course, that there are 'Catholic' scholars in perfectly good standing with the Church who deny the Bodily Resurrection, some of whom are with the Jesus Seminar.

As for Father Feeney, it is clear that the quote "said" was meant, in actuality, to mean "defined," for we read this:

"Father Feeney was strongly attracted to this opinion of St. Augustine, but there is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium to settle the matter. To make this particular point then, the essential part of Father Feeney's 'doctrinal crusade,' is to reduce the crusade to a mere theological opinion. As Fr. Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with authoritative sources; 'my saint tops your saint' or 'my commentator tops your commentator' is a game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.' The Church has not yet told us who was correct on this particular point, St. Thomas or St. Augustine, but she has told us that there is no salvation without her, and that is what really matters."

I am sure of the fact that Father Feeney was fully aware of the Catechisms of his day, which, included, the Catechism of Pius X, the Roman Catechism, and the Baltimore Catechism, all of which explicitly taught Baptism of Desire. Besides, he passed away in 1978, long after the death of Pius XII, so he was well aware of the quote from the Allocution that you provided above, yet that was not enough to "convince" him, was it? So, either he was a liar or was misunderstood from a hearsay quotation, and I have read enough of what his followers have said to know that it was the latter.

We all agree that Baptism of Desire was (and is) taught. What we don't agree upon is the fact that it was defined; neither do we agree that it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. However, as I have pointed out before, even if Baptism of Desire is part of the Ordinary Magisterium does not mean that it occurs, ever. Saying that something can happen is completely different from saying that it does happen.

MRyan while granted you have a gift to spew vociferously verbal venom at voluminous velocity, it really shows that you have no interest in truth but only causing consternation and confusion.

Has the CDF said, through Fr. Deery, that there can be a strict understand of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ? If you would be honest the answer is yes.

More than just an approval of communities by a local bishop (this also applies to you Jim) there has been direct communication with the CDF. Their ruling as related through Fr. Deerly:

"In our[Fr. Deery canonical vicar and the Bishop of Worcester] discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict
interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views." ( quoted from the official letter of the diocese of Worcester) http://www.scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney

If you read further in the letter it says that they can hold Fr. Feeney's strict understanding as they did before their regularization.

They are aloud to teach it, as opposed to not allowed, because it is in opposition to the magisterium.

They are aloud to discuss it. Which would mean that they can present their understanding in discussions with the liberal (MRyan/tornpage) view. But MRyan insists, if his followers do as the CDF instructs, they a being disloyal to the magesterium.
MRyan/tornpage you can't have it both ways!

Hey Cowboy, I challenge you to go to the websites of the approved splinter groups of the St. Benedict Center and demonstrate where a single one of them has openly advocated the outright “denial and rejection” of the Church's official teachings on baptism of desire and
baptism of blood as represented in the CCC. Go ahead ... let's see if you have any idea of what I have been arguing, or what you are talking about.

Is baptism of desire and baptism of blood salvific in their opinion as opposed to yours?
Moot point.
Did the CDF approve the official "Feeney position" or the more general term "STRICT understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"?
They approved a STRICT understand to which the "feeneyite" communities fall into. I'm not sure which position is more accurate the "no baptism of desire" camp or "baptism of desire is not salvific camp." Needless to say both stand on the absolute necessity for water baptism for salvation, id est, the strict understanding of of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

It is one thing to maintain belief in one's allowed opinion, it is quite another to “deny and reject” the official magisterial teachings of the Church.

Here you go again! Your delphic utterences as usual contradict themselves.
You imply if the followers of Feeney follow the directives of the CDF they are there by denying and rejecting the magesterium!

Could it be... maybe... your understanding of baptism of desire and of levels of authority are wrong?
Did that ever occur to you? No never you would rather just bully people and argue till you die.

BTW Can CCC teach error in doctrine as I remember you ran away from this before. You of course won't answer this with a simple yes or no but write a small book to give your reply.

Cowboy,

Since this is directed at MRyan mostly, I'll let him reply to the bulk of it.

Just wanted you to know that I'm getting a kick out of being painted as a liberal - my view on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is stricter than those "liberals" of the SSPX.

It's funny how these labels get tossed around by different groups.

Jehanne wrote:Well, it's good to see that you would become a sede if the Pope denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No, you missed the sarcasm. The Pope would never deny a dogma of the faith and hence lose the Catholic Faith by becoming a pertinacious heretic, so “becoming a sede” is out of the question since the assumption upon which it is based – I totally reject. I tend to take VCI at its infallible word that our Lord's promise to Peter was not an empty promise and that Peter's faith will not fail.

Jehanne wrote:And yes, I would not "give a damn" if the Pope ever embraced such a modernistic heresy; doing so would, at most, cause me not to lose my Faith but simply to withdraw, probably permanently, any communion with him. Realize, of course, that there are 'Catholic' scholars in perfectly good standing with the Church who deny the Bodily Resurrection, some of whom are with the Jesus Seminar.

Good for you. And just look at the excellent company you would keep; you and your little "remnant".

Jehanne wrote:As for Father Feeney, it is clear that the quote "said" was meant, in actuality, to mean "defined," for we read this:

"Father Feeney was strongly attracted to this opinion of St. Augustine, but there is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium to settle the matter. To make this particular point then, the essential part of Father Feeney's 'doctrinal crusade,' is to reduce the crusade to a mere theological opinion. As Fr. Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with authoritative sources; 'my saint tops your saint' or 'my commentator tops your commentator' is a game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.' The Church has not yet told us who was correct on this particular point, St. Thomas or St. Augustine, but she has told us that there is no salvation without her, and that is what really matters."

Yes, point well taken; but my point was that only in the unpublished second edition did Br. Sennott "qualify" his previous published remarks by suggesting that Fr. Feeney would not accept anything from the pope that was not in the form of a solemn ex cathedra pronouncement on baptism of desire.

So what kind of "qualification" was that to the reporter's hypothetical question other than an affirmation that Fr. Feeney would accept nothing less than a solemn definition?

It is meaningless because not to accept a solemn definition is blatant heresy. "Oh yes, I would submit immediately to what the pope "said" in his official capacity as supreme teacher ... but only to a solemn definition." That is so reassuring, don't you think?

The whole premise of Br. Sennott's argument of non-submission is the FALSE notion that to hold baptism of blood/baptism of desire is to necessarily hold that there is salvation "outside" the Church.

He said:

But Father Laisney, despite his posturing, does not really believe there is "no salvation outside the Church." Here is his final summary of his position: "The doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire is inseparably linked by the Church to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. It belongs to the very proper understanding of that dogma, so that if one denies it, he no longer holds the dogma in the same sense and the same words as the Church holds it."This is just a tricky was of saying there is salvation outside the Church.

Did you catch that? What Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center believed and taught until 1952; what St. Thomas Aquinas and all of the medieval theologians believed and taught, and what the universal Church believed and taught on baptism of blood/baptism of desire since at least the Council of Trent "is just a tricky way of saying there is salvation outside the Church."

In other words, Br. Sennott suggests that the Church holds the dogma in the same sense that she has always held it (the way Fr. Feeney would come to hold it in 1952), which necessarily excludes baptism of blood/baptism of desire which are nothing more than "theological speculations" which, if true, "is just a tricky way of saying there is salvation outside the Church"; notwithstanding the universal moral consensus of saints and theologians since Trent who taught otherwise, and notwithstanding what the authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the Church actually teaches.

But, it would appear that you deny that the ordinary Magisterium teaches these doctrines. I guess the Church just threw it into her universal Roman Catechism as a "theolgical speculation" as if to say: "Hey, this is what we think; the Church has always held these doctrines (with 'firm conviction'), but what do we know - believe whatever you want and feel free to 'deny and reject' these 'speculations' if you feel they are opposed to the dogma on Baptism since there is no real magisterial support given to these teachings."

Have I got that right?

As Fr. Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with authoritative sources; 'my saint tops your saint' or 'my commentator tops your commentator' is a game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.'

The authoritative source in this case being the "eureka" discovery of the long lost doctrine of Baptism that excludes baptism of blood/baptism of desire. Error just sort of slithered into the Church so many centuries ago, and thank goodness Fr. Feeney exposed the error and put the "true faith" back on track. Now, if only the "Church" would pay attention and stop with this "tricky way of saying there is salvation outside the Church".

But let's pit the authority of the so-called "fallible" magisterium against the authority of the supreme magisterium and feign submission to the latter while rejecting the former. That is always a popular ploy amongst Feeneyites who don't seem to realize that the very idea was condemned by the Church.

Jehanne wrote:We all agree that Baptism of Desire was (and is) taught. What we don't agree upon is the fact that it was defined; neither do we agree that it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Thank goodness for small favors, we can agree that baptism of blood/baptism of desire is taught by the Church. Who ever said that it was "defined"? Do you just make this stuff up?

Now you will have to define for us the "ordinary Magisterium" of the Church, and why baptism of blood/baptism of desire were never taught under this ordinary magisterial umbrella.

Jehanne wrote:However, as I have pointed out before, even if Baptism of Desire is part of the Ordinary Magisterium does not mean that it occurs, ever. Saying that something can happen is completely different from saying that it does happen.

And what has that to do with "denying and rejecting" the Church's ordinary teaching that it certainly can happen?

Does one's personal opinion that it never happens give that person the right to "deny and reject" the Church's ordinary teaching that she has always held the firm conviction that these doctrines are true and are indeed crucial to a correct understanding of Baptism?

Or is this just one more tricky way of teaching that there is salvation outside the Church?

Why, to "resolve" this issue, I would recommend that one turns to the "Magisterium of the Experts". That particular ploy seems to be gaining in popularity and fits in perfectly with your "I don't give a damn" what the CCC or the Pope says philosophy.

Do not think that I did not notice that you put the CCC on the same level of authority as a book by the pope as a private theologian. That did not surprise me in the least.

cowboy wrote:MRyan while granted you have a gift to spew vociferously verbal venom at voluminous velocity, it really shows that you have no interest in truth but only causing consternation and confusion.

Has the CDF said, through Fr. Deery, that there can be a strict understand of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ? If you would be honest the answer is yes.

Perhaps you are just so obtuse that you can't comprehend what I say, or you simply do not know understand the meaning of plain English.

When I said that Feeneyites are certainly allowed to hold a strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, what part of that "honesty" did you not understand?

But, when I said that holding a strict interpretation cannot come at the expense of "denying and rejecting" the Church's authentic ordinary teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire (notwithstanding withholding of the assent of the intellect for legitimate mental reservations), is this so complicated that you simply don't get it?

This is not an "either/or" scenario; this is taking what the Church gives you with respect to holding a strict position, without turning on the Church by accusing her of teaching a heterodox doctrine and telling her that she must "amend" her false teaching to the "Magisterium of the Experts".

The "I don't give a damn what the Pope or the CCC says" is precisely the point of this thead - a point obviously lost on you.

Your entire "Fr. Deery said" premise is a logical fallacy that holds that the CDF has given its implicit "approval" to the notion that it is an acceptable position to "deny and reject" the authority of the Church to teach the "erroneous" doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire and to accuse the Church of denying her own dogma on Baptism by teaching (through baptism of blood/baptism of desire) that there is in fact salvation outside the Church.

That is pure sophistry and there is nothing "Catholic" about it. There are legitimate ways to voice one's concern and respectful reservation to an official teaching of the Church, and "I don't give a damn what the pope or the CCC says" is not one of them. Neither is recourse to the "Magisterium of the Experts" at the expense of telling the Church to go pound sand.

I realize I am wasting my time with you.

cowboy wrote:More than just an approval of communities by a local bishop (this also applies to you Jim) there has been direct communication with the CDF. Their ruling as related through Fr. Deerly:

"In our[Fr. Deery canonical vicar and the Bishop of Worcester] discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views." ( quoted from the official letter of the diocese of Worcester) http://www.scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney

If you read further in the letter it says that they can hold Fr. Feeney's strict understanding as they did before their regularization.

They are aloud to teach it, as opposed to not allowed, because it is in opposition to the magisterium.

Your logical fallacy once again assumes that my position holds that a strict interpretation is necessarily in opposition to the magisterium, when it is not.

I am getting tired of explaining this to someone who refuses to listen.

cowboy wrote:

MRyan wrote:
It is one thing to maintain belief in one's allowed opinion, it is quite another to “deny and reject” the official magisterial teachings of the Church.

Here you go again! Your delphic utterences as usual contradict themselves.
You imply if the followers of Feeney follow the directives of the CDF they are there by denying and rejecting the magesterium!

Not at all, for the directives of the CDF do not say what your logical fallacy suggests.

cowboy wrote:Could it be... maybe... your understanding of baptism of desire and of levels of authority are wrong?

Only if the Church is "wrong".

cowboy wrote:Did that ever occur to you? No never you would rather just bully people and argue till you die.

No, it never occurred to me that the Church is teaching error.

cowboy wrote:BTW Can CCC teach error in doctrine as I remember you ran away from this before. You of course won't answer this with a simple yes or no but write a small book to give your reply.

Yes, the CCC can teach error in doctrine, but baptism of blood and baptism of desire cannot be opposed to the dogma of Baptism or Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or the Church would be stained with error for teaching this same doctrine since the Council of Trent.

A simple yes or no cannot convey the necessary distinctions; distinctions lost on the theologically obtuse.

MRyan, you love pounding on "open doors." Perhaps this is why your posts are so long. Father Feeney, his followers at the SBCs, and as well as me, profess and believe the following:

Absolutely everyone who attains the Beatific Vision, Heaven, will have died with Sacramental Baptism of Water.

Never, ever has the Church condemned and/or censored the above belief.

Jehanne wrote:MRyan, you love pounding on "open doors." Perhaps this is why your posts are so long. Father Feeney, his followers at the SBCs, and as well as me, profess and believe the following:

Absolutely everyone who attains the Beatific Vision, Heaven, will have died with Sacramental Baptism of Water.

Never, ever has the Church condemned and/or censored the above belief.

No kidding; which only goes to prove that you don't have a clue what this thread is all about. You just post one irrelevant post after another, except where you proved the veracity of the opening thread when you said that you don't give a damn what the Pope or the CCC teaches if their teaching is (allegedly) opposed to your private interpretation of a dogma.

You are the living, breathing example of those who cling to the "Magisterium of the Experts" who refuse to be "moderated" by the Church, even when she gives them the room to respectfully withhold assent of the intellect, when justified; while demanding a respectful religious submission of the will to her teaching authority.

The rope she gives you - you use to hang yourself. Its quite a spectacle.

Funny, isn't it, how Hans Kung, a leading theologian agrees with us:

http://catholicism.org/commentary-on-dr-jeff-mirus-commentary.html

"Now where does true charity lie? Idle speculation? Burying this ex cathedra doctrine, lest we 'offend'? Trying to be more inclusive by applying all kinds of loopholes to the ex cathedra teaching? At least Hans Kung was being honest when he said that the pope cannot be infallible because past popes pronounced from the chair that there is no salvation outside the Church. And the Church certainly doesn’t teach that today. Such was his argument."

Jehanne wrote:Funny, isn't it, how Hans Kung, a leading theologian agrees with us:

http://catholicism.org/commentary-on-dr-jeff-mirus-commentary.html

"Now where does true charity lie? Idle speculation? Burying this ex cathedra doctrine, lest we 'offend'? Trying to be more inclusive by applying all kinds of loopholes to the ex cathedra teaching? At least Hans Kung was being honest when he said that the pope cannot be infallible because past popes pronounced from the chair that there is no salvation outside the Church. And the Church certainly doesn’t teach that today. Such was his argument."

Well, we've arrived at the point where Jehanne is actually recruiting Hans Kung as an ally in his "I don't give a damn what the pope or the CCC says" philosophy, by suggesting that the Church's magisterial presentations of baptism of blood/baptism of desire are "idle speculations" that "teach" that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Of course, Jehanne doesn't realize that Jeffrey Mirus is only repeating the fallacious argument of Hans Kung in order to demonstrate how Kung sought to justify his "loopholes" in the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus by suggesting that the "fallible" Church no longer teaches the dogma.

Perhaps Kung and Jehanne belong in the same camp after all.

But I would not suggest that you tell the St. Benedict Center that you've recruited Hans Kung into your camp, they might excommunicate you.

If you read more of their stuff, they will say that, "at least liberals are honest." No, for the record, I think that Hans Kung is a heretic, but at least he is honest. Look in the voluminous Index of the CCC sometime. The three infallible definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Lateran IV, Unam Sanctam, and Florence) are not even listed. Of course, that's because they are never referred to!

Meaning .... Hans Kung is honest when he says the Church no longer teaches Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, while the pope(s) and the CCC, canon law, the Catechism of Trent, Pope Pius XII, etc. etc, are "dishonest" for teaching baptism of blood/baptism of desire and, by extension, salvation outside the Church.

Got it; and no wonder you say you don't give a damn what the Pope or the CCC teach, you are guided by the divine light of a superior Magisterium of the Experts.

Say no more ... but read the opening post from time to time - one day it might sink in; but I doubt it.

I have read it, and what you are (trying) to say is, "Whatever Rome is saying, that's the truth." You place your complete trust in whatever the Pope authoritatively is teaching. Yes, I have read it -- Twice nothing is, however, still nothing.

When I said that Feeneyites are certainly allowed to hold a strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, what part of that "honesty" did you not understand?

So NOW they are allowed to hold it! So now you agree with the CDF and the Church!

But, when I said that holding a strict interpretation cannot come at the expense of "denying and rejecting" the Church's authentic ordinary teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire (notwithstanding withholding of the assent of the intellect for legitimate mental reservations), is this so complicated that you simply don't get it?

Actually it is complicated and that is your problem you can't understand that it is a complicated problem.

First you say they can hold it.
Then you say they are NOT allowed to hold it.
The Feeney position, which you admit can be held, can't go against what MRyan holds as an infallible teaching: baptism of desire is salvific.

Well maybe if you ever read the strict understanding of Fr. Feeney, which is approved of by the Church to be discussed and taught, which he held, as do his followers: baptism of desire is not salvific.

So is the CDF teaching heresy? They are saying, and you admit ,"Feeneyites" can teach baptism of desire is not salvific while in

the CCC teaches it is salvific.

Do you see a problem with your infallible doctrine? I do.


It is not clear and is open to debate, until there is a definitive statement on which is correct, we can debate who has the correct understanding without labeling each other as disloyal to the magesterium.

This why your methodology leads to Sedevacantism. You elevate the CCC position on baptism of desire: it is salvific as infallible, when it is not. Otherwise the then head of the CDF, Ratzinger, wouldn't have approved the community with a strict understanding :baptism of desire is not salvific. The same goes for the salvation of infants without Baptism, we are still allowed to hold the strict doctrine of Limbo, which would mean we can reject the opposite :the hope of non-baptized infants. Otherwise you are promoting double-think and deny the law of non-contradiction.

If anyone raises a question of baptism of desire they are labeled by you a heretic! By questioning the authority of the CCC I am labeled by you an unfaithful Catholic. But you yourself admit it can contain error! You point fingers at everyone for disloyalty ( like a semi-sedvicantist) when they are straining to make sense of the messed-up organization of the Church. Can't you just chill and listen to the CDF and the Church and say" its OK to hold a strict understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and lets discuss why I don't hold the strict version?"

All your name calling and personal attacks comes off as really infantile.

Yes, the CCC can teach error in doctrine, but baptism of blood and
baptism of desire cannot be opposed to the dogma of Baptism or Extra
Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or the Church would be stained with error for
teaching this same doctrine since the Council of Trent.

So the CCC can contain error, so it is a norm, but can't be used as you have in the past, as an infallible document.

The "I don't give a damn what the Pope or the CCC says" is precisely the point of this thread - a point obviously lost on you.

I never claimed Jeanne spoke for me. You must be out of ammo to reach for such a childish ploy.
If you want I can search for outrageous statements those of the baptism of desire is salvific camp has said and say this is your position?

Hey great to see you aboard cowboy! I am just too tired after work to contribute. Just wanted to you to the fight If you want I can help you find outrageous statements by BoDites and post them as MRyans position

cowboy wrote:Well maybe if you ever read the strict understanding of Fr. Feeney, which is approved of by the Church to be discussed and taught, which he held, as do his followers: baptism of desire is not salvific.

Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are salvific; it's just that neither ever occur independently of Baptism of Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

The One and Triune God commands all to be "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5, RSV), and since with God, "nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37, RSV), which means that "all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26, RSV), and since God is a "God of knowledge," (1 Samuel 2:3, RSV), and since nothing happens apart from the "Father's will," (Matthew 10:29, RSV), and since "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, RSV), we are certainly free, as did Father Feeney and his followers, to conclude that God will provide sacramental Baptism to WHOMEVER sincerely desires it.

Jehanne wrote:Look in the voluminous Index of the CCC sometime. The three infallible definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Lateran IV, Unam Sanctam, and Florence) are not even listed. Of course, that's because they are never referred to!

Of course not, Lateran IV is cited only 12 times, Florence is cited only 18 times and The Council of Trent is cited only 100 times. You are implying of course, that the CCC does not cite the definitions because it no longer teaches the dogma, which is complete nonsense. It is irrelevant whether the CCC cites the solemn definitions when it cites other magisterial sources which confirm the same dogma, including the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council.

Btw, would you care to guess how many times the Catechism of Trent cites the Council of Trent? You can count it on one hand, and not one of them have to do with salvation or Baptism. But you will find copious references to the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and other Saints and Fathers. The fact is the CCC is the most heavily indexed Catechism ever produced, and it not at all devoid of the perennial references to Ecumenical and Particular Councils, to Synods, the Fathers, the Saints, Pontifical Documents, and the magisterial teachings of the Church.

But let's go to a heavily cited passage, CCC, 161, The Necessity of Faith:

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"(43)

Footnote 43 cites VCI, Dei Felius, 3: DS 3012, three Scripture references, and the Council of Trent, DS 1532.

Dei Felius, 3 (DS 3012, [1793]):

[The necessity of embracing faith and retaining it]. But, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" [ Heb. 11:6] and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, hence, no one is justified without it; nor will anyone attain eternal life except "he shall persevere unto the end on it" [ Matt. 10:22;24:13]. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.

The Council of Trent, DS 1532, Session VI, Ch. 8:

In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

The CCC 161 also had side references to CCC 432, 1257 and 846:

432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation,(23) so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."(24 )

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.(59) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.(60) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.(61) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation ["Outside the Church there is no salvation"], often repeated by the Church Fathers?(335) Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.(336)

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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 may achieve eternal salvation.(337)

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."(338)

Once again, what is that Faith, according to the CCC, without which it is impossible to please God? Once more:

CCC, 161, The Necessity of Faith:

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"(43)

CCC 161, 846, 847 and 848 must be read together, otherwise, 846 alone might lead one to believe that inculpable ignorance is some sort of default state of salvation when the true Faith cannot be known by ordinary means (faith by hearing). 847 and 848 (with their footnotes and other complimentary teaching), however, complete the teaching by stating that God may bring that Faith, without which no one has ever attained justification, and without which it is impossible to please God, to those that “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”.

That is precisely what Pope Pius IX taught in his three separate documents all touching on this subject, while affirming, as the Church affirms today, that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church.

But wait, none of those Allocations or Encyclicals were "infallible" since Pope Pius IX did not "define" this teaching, so feel free to "deny and reject" what he taught by appealing to the "Magisterium of the Experts".

Btw, the CCC, 848 cited above references Ad Gentes # 7, which reads:

This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.

Do you really wish to challenge me to a “debate” in order to refute your repeated accusation that the “dishonest” CCC and the Church no longer teach the solemnly defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

I think you just lost that "debate".

Cowboy,

I hate to be so blunt, but you don't have what it takes to engage anyone in a “debate” that requires at least some rudimentary knowledge of theological truths and distinctions, or at least the ability to acquire that knowledge; and neither can you follow an argument without completely distorting it and running your mouth in such an intellectually insulting manner that it is painful to watch.

I will let your insulting and childish post stand for everyone to see; and you can take some solace in the fact that you have a kindred soul in Duckbill, who speaks your nonsensical childish language and is one of the most sensitive whiners I have ever encountered.

I'll stand toe-to-toe with anyone who wants to engage in a spirited debate; but I don't have time for the likes of you. I tried, and its simply not going to work as I have neither the time nor the patience for such fruitless and exacerbating efforts.

One must wonder what Pope Benedict, formerly Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, principal architect of the CCC, was thinking when he wrote his most recent book. I do not ever recall saying that the entire CCC was heterodox, just, as I can recall, only #1261, which we have already discussed at length, so please do not impute to me views that I do not hold.

Of course, I have studied the CCC at length, and was fully aware of the citations from Lateran IV, Florence, and Trent. Still, Pope Boniface VIII was completely ignored, whose teaching was explicitly affirmed at the Fifth Lateran Council and was even affirmed, explicitly, by Pope Pius XII, over 600 hundred years after Unam Sanctam. One cannot help but wonder why the CCC, if, indeed, it is teaching the "same dogma" of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus would exclude such a foundational Magisterial document, which, Pope Bonfiace, based squarely upon the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle theologian??

Jehanne,

I have to hand it to you; this is going to be one of my all time favorites:

I have read it, and what you are (trying) to say is, "Whatever Rome is saying, that's the truth." You place your complete trust in whatever the Pope authoritatively is teaching. Yes, I have read it -- Twice nothing is, however, still nothing.

Imagine, putting one's trust in the authoritative papal magisterium ... what in the world can I be thinking?

Well, there's always the option of placing one's trust in the "Magisterium of the Experts", no?

Let me flip a coin ......

I chose the latter, the Magisterium of the Experts. Hopefully, through continued dialogue, the Magisterium of Rome will come back to the Magisterium of the Experts. Realize, of course, that the Magisterium of the Experts is just doing historical research.

It's been a wonderful discussion. This will be my last post for this thread. Until next time...

MRyan wrote:Cowboy,

I hate to be so blunt, but you don't have what it takes to engage anyone in a “debate” that requires at least some rudimentary knowledge of theological truths and distinctions, or at least the ability to acquire that knowledge; and neither can you follow an argument without completely distorting it and running your mouth in such an intellectually insulting manner that it is painful to watch.

I will let your insulting and childish post stand for everyone to see; and you can take some solace in the fact that you have a kindred soul in Duckbill, who speaks your nonsensical childish language and is one of the most sensitive whiners I have ever encountered.

I'll stand toe-to-toe with anyone who wants to engage in a spirited debate; but I don't have time for the likes of you. I tried, and its simply not going to work as I have neither the time nor the patience for such fruitless and exacerbating efforts.

You Debate Jehanne because you can bully him. But when someone opposes you that you can't defend your position against, you run away. All everyone will see is you lost, again.

columba wrote:
As he correctly points out there is an inconsistancy between V2 and the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Unfortunately nowhere has the present Church Heirarchy showed where in fact Fr Feeney was wrong in his interpretation of the dogma and (although Fr Feeney would not have been aware of this) there has never been an explanation of how the Church "subsisting" squares with the 2000 yr understanding of the Churches position regarding this.
It would appear that the more time goes by, the more Fr Feeney is found justified in his defence of traditrional understandings.

Columba,

Unless I missed it, the author did not point out an inconsistency between VCII and the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, so I have no idea where you got that from. The references to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus were mine, and I did say that there have been abuses and a neglect of the dogma, but that is a far cry from saying there is an “inconsistency” between VCII and the definitions.

That does not mean that an inconsistency cannot be perceived due to the pastoral (sometimes confusing) language and the ambiguity of some passages; and that I will grant you. But I think it is also fair to say that the Feeneyite who is of the mind that the Church has "defined" that salvation is confined to a visible incorporation only and who "rejects" a unity with the Body through Faith, Charity and an implicit desire to enter the Church, will see inconsistencies everywhere and, as we have seen, will appeal to a “prior magisterium” and a private interpretation of the dogma to tell us what the dogma “really” means, clearly stating or implying that the Church has defected from the Faith by “changing” the dogma, and that she must return to the “true Faith” as it is held by the guardians of the Faith - the “Magisterium of the Experts.”

Agree or disagree, that is the substance of the initial post.

But I would like to respond to your statement where you said: “nowhere has the present Church Heirarchy showed where in fact Fr Feeney was wrong in his interpretation of the dogma”.

I don't know why the present Church hierarchy would be obligated to demonstrate where Fr. Feeney got it wrong when the 1949 Holy Office Letter (cited by Lumen Gentium) did just that. Besides, why would Fr. Feeney or the present day St. Benedict Center even be on the radar screen of Rome, anyway? Is there some “Feeneyite” movement out there that is gaining ground and is demanding that Rome come back to the true faith and desist from teaching a defective dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Other than the handful of rabid sede Feeneyites, there is no such movement. If you think there is, you are mistaken. The former hard-liners that at one time accused the Holy Office of “heresy” (which is a dangerous thing to do now that the doctrinal content of the Letter has been confirmed and taught by VCII and other magisterial documents) are no where to be found, except in their “spiritual descendants” who populate internet forums where they can say just the darndest things; and I doubt such forums are read by the Vatican.

I would be glad to go over the 1949 Holy Office Letter with you (once again) to demonstrate the “corrections” made to Fr. Feeney's doctrine, referred to in the Letter as “those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church [that] are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.”

I'll leave you with this relevant instruction from the Letter:

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.

Say, that sounds familiar; does it ring a bell?

MRyan wrote:That does not mean that an inconsistency cannot be perceived due to the pastoral (sometimes confusing) language and the ambiguity of some passages; and that I will grant you. But I think it is also fair to say that the Feeneyite who is of the mind that the Church has "defined" that salvation is confined to a visible incorporation only and who "rejects" a unity with the Body through Faith, Charity...

This is not what "Feeneyites" claim.

MRyan wrote:and an implicit desire to enter the Church

That phrase was dropped at Vatican II.

MRyan wrote:I don't know why the present Church hierarchy would be obligated to demonstrate where Fr. Feeney got it wrong when the 1949 Holy Office Letter (cited by Lumen Gentium) did just that.

They did cite from it, but they dropped the word "implicit."

MRyan wrote:Holy Office of “heresy” (which is a dangerous thing to do now that the doctrinal content of the Letter has been confirmed and taught by VCII and other magisterial documents) are no where to be found, except in their “spiritual descendants” who populate internet forums where they can say just the darndest things; and I doubt such forums are read by the Vatican.

That Holy Office letter has not been "confirmed."

MRyan wrote:I would be glad to go over the 1949 Holy Office Letter with you (once again) to demonstrate the “corrections” made to Fr. Feeney's doctrine, referred to in the Letter as “those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church [that] are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.”

I'll leave you with this relevant instruction from the Letter:

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.

Say, that sounds familiar; does it ring a bell?

Yes, it does. The Letter is in error, so what?!

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:That does not mean that an inconsistency cannot be perceived due to the pastoral (sometimes confusing) language and the ambiguity of some passages; and that I will grant you. But I think it is also fair to say that the Feeneyite who is of the mind that the Church has "defined" that salvation is confined to a visible incorporation only and who "rejects" a unity with the Body through Faith, Charity...

This is not what "Feeneyites" claim.

So much for your "last post". Why do you deliberately cut my sentence short and then say "This is not what 'Feeneyites' claim" when the sentence must be read as a whole?

One would think that I would be used to such tactics by now; but still ...

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:and an implicit desire to enter the Church

That phrase was dropped at Vatican II.

To say that it was not explicitly mentioned is not the same as saying that it was "dropped", thereby implying that the Church has since amended the teaching of the Letter, which is completely false. Of course, if you can show me where the Council taught that an explicit desire to enter the Church is necessary for salvation, I will accept the "correction".

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:I don't know why the present Church hierarchy would be obligated to demonstrate where Fr. Feeney got it wrong when the 1949 Holy Office Letter (cited by Lumen Gentium) did just that.

They did cite from it, but they dropped the word "implicit."

Again, it does not matter, since it is certainly "implied" in several documents, including Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes. What the St. Benedict Center has "dropped", is calling an "implicit desire" to enter the Church "heretical". And yes, one may hold that an explicit desire is necessary without contradicting the Magisterium.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Holy Office of “heresy” (which is a dangerous thing to do now that the doctrinal content of the Letter has been confirmed and taught by VCII and other magisterial documents) are no where to be found, except in their “spiritual descendants” who populate internet forums where they can say just the darndest things; and I doubt such forums are read by the Vatican.

That Holy Office letter has not been "confirmed."

It's teachings were most certainly "confirmed" by way of being repeated in the documents of VCII and the CCC.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:I would be glad to go over the 1949 Holy Office Letter with you (once again) to demonstrate the “corrections” made to Fr. Feeney's doctrine, referred to in the Letter as “those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church [that] are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.”

I'll leave you with this relevant instruction from the Letter:

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.

Say, that sounds familiar; does it ring a bell?

Yes, it does. The Letter is in error, so what?!

So what? It is not only the Letter which confirmed this teaching, but a whole host of Popes and VCII. Just one example:

Pope Pius XII Encyclical, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950

. . . although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as it it did not exist.

"So what" - he says.

I am done posting for this thread, but in saying that, I am not abrogating my moral obligation to respond to disinformation. As long as you continue to spread it, I will continue to respond to it.

As for the Holy Office, Pope Boniface is of a higher authority. He stated,

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed."

He did not state,

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to do what we can to desire that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is both salvation and the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6: proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her", and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, three baptisms (Eph 4:5). There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed except those who desired to hop aboard the ark as the rain started to drown them."

So, yes, I am done posting in this thread, but am not done reading it.

Jehanne wrote:I am done posting for this thread, but in saying that, I am not abrogating my moral obligation to respond to disinformation. As long as you continue to spread it, I will continue to respond to it.

Whatever ... its nice to know that you have the moral obligation to correct my "disinformation", especially when it comes to that particular "disinformation" of the Holy Office that was confirmed by Pope Pius XII when he declared that "this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted".

And I could swear that declaration of truth sounds just like the same truth presented by the Holy Office when it said:

However, this dogma [Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus] 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.

Isn't that what you called "error"? Seems you have nothing to say about the declaration by Pope Pius XII, so now you divert back to placing the authority of Pope Boniface above the authority of the Holy Office Letter (and above the authority of Pope Pius XII and VCII), as if there exists some contradiction.

But perhaps you can explain how an "implicit desire" to enter the Church is opposed to the infallible declaration that says "we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic".

Can you explain what your caricature that goes "Urged by faith, we are obliged to do what we can to desire that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic" has to do with a desire, explicit or implicit, to enter the Church?

Also, can someone who has a supernatural faith and charity (as the Holy Office Letter confirms must exist) be obliged to believe in the attributes of the Church if he is not aware of its divine institution (inculpable ignorance)? Since when has "belief" in the Church as a divine institution become an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation?

And are you seriously suggesting that "In her then is one Lord, one faith, three baptisms" is what the Church actually teaches when she confirms that she has "always held the firm conviction" that baptism of desire/baptism of blood "brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament" and "For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."?

Of course, you say, the Church, the Holy Office Letter, Pope Pius XII and VCII are in "error" when they confirmed that there is only one official "interpreter" of the deposit and dogmas of the Faith, and it is not the self-appointed "Magisterium of the Experts".

Do you even realize what you are saying? Apparently, not. Your little parody of the Bull of Boniface would be even funnier if it had some relevance to this discussion. As it is, it is simply lame.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION

DEI VERBUM

SOLEMNLY PROMULGATEDBY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Footnote (9) references “Pius XII, encyclical 'Humani Generis,' Aug. 12, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) pp. 568-69: Denzinger 2314 (3886).”, which, once again, declares:

. . . although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as it it did not exist.

According to Jehanne, counting the Holy Office Letter, that is three more of the same “error” from the “fallible” authoritative magisterium.

Feel free, Jehanne, to correct that "disinformation", especially if you wish to amend your accusation of "error" cited above.

Does one HAVE to accept the teaching of the"Protocol letter to Boston" of 'implicit desire' to be a Catholic? Am I a heretic if I don't accept it?

If yes then would you claim the same of the 1959 Holy Offices' directive of the 'no solid foundation for the salvation of infants' HAS to be accepted too to be a Catholic? Are those heretics who don't accept it?

Duckbill,

My son, a Pittsburgh Pirates fan, hopes that the Pirates win the Series, but he has no "solid foundation" that that will happen. If you see a contradiction there, or smell a heresy there, explain it to me.

duckbill wrote:Does one HAVE to accept the teaching of the"Protocol letter to Boston" of 'implicit desire' to be a Catholic? Am I a heretic if I don't accept it?

If yes then would you claim the same of the 1959 Holy Offices' directive of the 'no solid foundation for the salvation of infants' HAS to be accepted too to be a Catholic? Are those heretics who don't accept it?

Here we go again with the “go ahead, prove to me that I am not a Catholic” if I do not accept the Holy Office Letter's teaching on an “implicit desire” to enter the Church for those who are mired in invincible ignorance, but have been granted, or must obtain, the gifts of supernatural faith and charity, as the Letter instructs.

Of course, you conveniently ignored the part where I said “And yes, one may hold that an explicit desire [to enter the Church] is necessary without contradicting the Magisterium.”

And, there is no contradiction between the CCC and the 1959 Holy Office directive since the “hope” of salvation is not a “solid foundation” for the assurance of salvation, which is why both directives teach that the Baptism of infants should not be unduly delayed.

Typical Duckbill … grasping at straw, setting up straw-men, and distorting Church teaching; not to mention distorting my arguments.

But we should take notice that everything with you boils down to whether a given teaching or directive is “infallible”, and if not, you feel free to reject it and revert to your "Magisterium of the Experts".

Cowboy,

All everyone will see is you lost, again.

Now I really feel like a nobody.

Correction: Make that, "Now I really feel like a no one." What a destruction of a good punch line that was!!!

MRyan wrote:

duckbill wrote:Does one HAVE to accept the teaching of the"Protocol letter to Boston" of 'implicit desire' to be a Catholic? Am I a heretic if I don't accept it?

If yes then would you claim the same of the 1959 Holy Offices' directive of the 'no solid foundation for the salvation of infants' HAS to be accepted too to be a Catholic? Are those heretics who don't accept it?

Here we go again with the “go ahead, prove to me that I am not a Catholic” if I do not accept the Holy Office Letter's teaching on an “implicit desire” to enter the Church for those who are mired in invincible ignorance, but have been granted, or must obtain, the gifts of supernatural faith and charity, as the Letter instructs.

Of course, you conveniently ignored the part where I said “And yes, one may hold that an explicit desire [to enter the Church] is necessary without contradicting the Magisterium.”

And, there is no contradiction between the CCC and the 1959 Holy Office directive since the “hope” of salvation is not a “solid foundation” for the assurance of salvation, which is why both directives teach that the Baptism of infants should not be unduly delayed.

Typical Duckbill … grasping at straw, setting up straw-men, and distorting Church teaching; not to mention distorting my arguments.

But we should take notice that everything with you boils down to whether a given teaching or directive is “infallible”, and if not, you feel free to reject it and revert to your "Magisterium of the Experts".

There you go again speaking double talk.

“And yes, one may hold that an explicit desire [to enter the Church] is necessary without contradicting the Magisterium.”

You say that I can be a Catholic in good standing, if I hold the "Feeneyite" position

But we should take notice that everything with you boils down to whether
a given teaching or directive is “infallible”, and if not, you feel
free to reject it and revert to your "Magisterium of the Experts".

Then turn around and say that I am rejecting the Magisterium.

Come on please be honest!

The CDF never insisted that the teaching of the "Boston Letter" had to be accepted by ALL Catholics, as matter of fact it said the opposite (Feeneyites had to acknowledge it, but not necessarily accept all it teaches), and you know it, but you constantly spin things to try to make the Feeneyites look disloyal to the Magisterium. The communities only had to acknowledge the "Protocol" letter not accept its teaching:

“1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8
August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to
make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the
Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as
those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney

Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?

As for Limbo, again you spin things to make it look like Feeneyites are rejecting Church directives, but it is you who are ignoring them not me. You just ignore the possibilities that Magisterium has given Feeneyites the permission to hold a strict understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the recent commitee allows Catholics to hold the traditional teaching of Limbo:

"41. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a
possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and
safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the
human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal
salvific will of God; "

Again
"This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages,
never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if
that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary
teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a
possible theological hypothesis"
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The "experts" I am listening to are the ones the Magisterium has said I can listen to.

If one is allowed to hold that Limbo exist it stands to reason one can reject the other theory for oneself while admitting it is a debatable topic and those who reject limbo are not heretics, nor Catholics in bad standing,and vice versa, until the Magisterium makes a clear definitive ruling.

Duckbill,

You just don't get it.

After reading your straw-filled "response", I promised myself I would count to 10 before responding. As it is, it's taking longer than I expected. I just keep shaking my head wondering if this is worth it.

But I'll reply to your straw-man arguments, in due time.