Friday, February 17, 2012

EWTN'S NEW REPORT ON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION ASSUMES THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ETC ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN TO US AND SO CONTRADICTS THE DOGMA


EWTN has placed a report on the internet titled Outside the Church No Salvation which criticizes ‘ the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved)’ and claims it has ‘been condemned by the Magisterium.’

 In other words EWTN says every one does not have to convert into the Church for salvation (Pope Pius IX, Allocution), the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are defacto, explicitly known cases which  contradict ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).Also EWTN suggests that  there are is a Magiseterial document which says specifically that Fr.Leonard Feeney was condemned for heresy and which EWTN has not specified.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church.

Lionel: The Magisterium of the Church says all need to enter the Church for salvation. (Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,845, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).

Lumen Gentium 16 and LG 8 are not exceptions to the dogma since we do not know any explicit case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, good conscience or with ‘elements of sanctification’.

EWTN:
Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."

Lionel:
EWTN is contradicting the Magisterial documents cited above.

EWTN:
Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Lionel:
EWTN assumes that ‘those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion’ are an exception to the ‘rigorist interpretation’ which is that the Apostolic Roman Church ‘is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge.’

The Church Fathers and the popes knew there was no contradiction.This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Ruchard Cushing and the Jesuits there. Cushingism says every one needs to enter the Church, except, for those in invincible ignorance etc.Since Cushingism  assumes that these ‘exceptions’ are defacto known to us in the present times.

EWTN:Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

Lionel:
 Invincible ignorance is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church this is not a contradiction to CCC 846 also saying that all need to enter the Church as ‘through a door’ and that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (AG 7).

EWTN:
These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium.

Lionel:
 It depends on the interpretation. Do we interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism?

EWTN:
It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

Lionel:
EWTN is still denying the centuries old interpretation of the dogma and assuming that there are defacto exceptions in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

EWTN  also implies that the popes and Church Councils ex cathedra were wrong. Since it is assumed that they were contradicted by magisterial teachings of popes and Vatican Council II.

EWTN slanders a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL


16 comments:

Sebastian said...

Part One

I am truly amazed that this is still an issue. Fr. Leonard Feeney has been thoroughly discredited. Only those who seek to divide the Church continue to carry his banner. To begin with, it is important to note that just as Protestants have no right to privately interpret Scripture Catholics have no right to privately interpret Magisterial documents. Accusing the Magisterium of contradicting itself is what we would call quintessential Protestantism.

You begin your criticism of EWTN by saying: “The Magisterium of the Church says all need to enter the Church for salvation. (Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,845, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).”

All of this is true but it is not the only thing the Church says on the subject. That seems to be where you miss the boat. You keep what you want and discard what you don’t like. That of course leads to taking statements out of context. When you take statements out of context you give them a meaning which was never intended.

You said: “Lumen Gentium 16 and LG 8 are not exceptions to the dogma since we do not know any explicit case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, good conscience or with ‘elements of sanctification’.”

Whether or not someone makes it to heaven is not dependant on my knowing about it. All I need to know is that the teaching is true. LG 8 & 16 tell me just that. God takes care of the details of each person’s judgment. I don’t need to know what God is doing in order for it to be valid.

EWTN rightly pointed out the following: “the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."

You responded by saying: “EWTN is contradicting the Magisterial documents cited above.” What does that statement have to do with the question at hand? You either agree with Vatican I or you disagree. Which is it? Does the Magesterium have the authority to determine and expound the meaning of its Tradition? The answer of course is yes.

EWTN then quotes Pope Pius IX on the very topic we are discussing. He said: “We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?”

You answered with: “EWTN assumes that ‘those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion’ are an exception to the ‘rigorist interpretation’ which is that the Apostolic Roman Church ‘is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge.’”

EWTN isn’t assuming anything. They merely presented you with the words of Pope Pius IX. Of course they agree with the pope as they are faithful Catholics. But at the end of the day there is no need for EWTN to assume anything. The pope spells it out quite nicely: “we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. Sounds pretty clear to me! The bottom line is that you have a problem with Pope Pius IX. You focus on EWTN so your argument won’t sound like what it is – a rejection of Church authority.

You then criticized the late Cardinal Cushing. What is that all about? The quote is from Pope Pius IX.

Sebastian R. Fama
StayCatholic.com

Sebastian R. Fama said...

Part Two

EWTN further backs up its argument by presenting a quote from Pius IX’s encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 where he says pretty much the same thing:

“It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.”

Then you said: “Invincible ignorance is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” Yes it is. Pope Pius just said it in an encyclical. How did you miss that? You are only responsible for what you know. This has always been the teaching of the Church. We were taught this as kids.

Prior to Vatican II, children were taught the faith from the Baltimore Catechisms. In Catechism number 3, on page 106 – question 185, and page 39 – question 69, you will find the following:

185. Who is punished in hell? Those are punished in hell who die in mortal sin; they are deprived of the vision of God and suffer dreadful torments, especially that of fire, for all eternity.

69. What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal? To make a sin mortal these three things are necessary: First, the thought, desire, word, action, or omission must be seriously wrong; second, the sinner must know that it is seriously wrong; third, the sinner must fully consent to it.

So only a mortal sin can damn you to hell. And in order to be guilty of a mortal sin, you must know that you are committing one! Hence, if you don't know, you are not guilty. Jesus Himself teaches this very thing in John 9:40-41 where He says to the Pharisees: "Some of the Pharisees near Him heard this, and they said to Him, 'Are we also blind?' Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say 'we see,' your guilt remains.'" In other words because they knew better they were guilty of sin. Had they not known better, they would not have been guilty.

EWTN went on to say: “These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium.”

To which you responded: “It depends on the interpretation. Do we interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism?”

Why do you keep trying to spin this into something that it is not? Any Church document weather it be an encyclical, catechism or council ruling is always interpreted according to the mind of the Church. That is the Magisterium. Besides in this case there is no need to interpret anything. The meaning is clear and allows for no error. “those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord.”

You concluded your remarks with the following:

“EWTN is still denying the centuries old interpretation of the dogma and assuming that there are defacto exceptions in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

EWTN also implies that the popes and Church Councils ex cathedra were wrong. Since it is assumed that they were contradicted by magisterial teachings of popes and Vatican Council II.

EWTN slanders a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church.”

Sebastian R. Fama
StayCatholic.com

Sebastian R. Fama said...

Part Three

As for point number one: EWTN denies nothing that the Church has taught. There is also no mention of defacto exceptions in Vatican II and the Catechism. Just as you miss the literal words in Quanto conficiamur moerore you also miss the plain words of Vatican II and the Catechism. Let’s take a look at what they had to say in paragraphs 846 to 848:

“How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.

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.

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. (CCC 846-848)”

Once again that is pretty clear stuff. And it is nothing new as you would have us believe. Consider the following:

St. Augustine's position is also consistent with Vatican II. "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39] [A.D. 394]).

Clement of Rome, a contemporary of the Apostles, wrote, "Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God" (Letter to the Corinthians, no. 7 [AD 95]).

If you so desire I can provide you with additional quotes from other early fathers.


Sebastian R. Fama
StayCatholic.com

Sebastian R. Fama said...

Part Four

Paul clearly teaches that we are judged by our intentions. "Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God" (1 Corinthians 4:5).

He expands on this in Romans 2:13-16, "For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the Law do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law. They show that what the Law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

Their conflicting thoughts would accuse them if they suspected but ignored the fact that God required them to be members of His Church.

Your second closing point is an outright falsehood based on your inability to see what is literally before you. EWTN in no way implied that popes and councils were in error. Any honest neutral observer would agree.

As for your final point, EWTN did not slander a priest in good standing with the Church. It is clear from the Letter of the Holy Office that Fr. Feeney is responsible for his own problems. EWTN is only acknowledging the situation. Furthermore, if you would have done a search of the EWTN site you would have found an article by Michael J. Mazza entitled: “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS: FATHER FEENEY MAKES A COMEBACK” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm). Mr. Mazza does an excellent job of covering every aspect of this issue. Perhaps you could read it when you get a chance. You will find that EWTN is on very solid ground.

The situation is quite simple really, Feeney propagated a heretical teaching. Rome tried to correct him. He rejected the correction. Consequently, he was excommunicated. There is no way around it, Fr. Feeney discredited himself. His followers can spin it any way they like. Unfortunately they put their own souls in jeopardy. Jesus was very clear when He said to His apostles “He who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Give it up Lionel. Accept Christ on His own terms. Demanding that He get in line with your thinking can only end in disaster.

Sebastian R. Fama
StayCatholic.com

Catholic Mission said...

Sebastian Fama:

Part One I am truly amazed that this is still an issue. Fr. Leonard Feeney has been thoroughly discredited.

Lionel:
In the Jewish Left media supported by Catholic liberals intentionally or unintentionally.


Sebastian:
Only those who seek to divide the Church continue to carry his banner.

Lionel:
It could be said of those who put forward new doctrines and reject traditional teaching.

Sebastian:

To begin with, it is important to note that just as Protestants have no right to privately interpret Scripture Catholics have no right to privately interpret Magisterial documents.

Lionel:
Correct.

Sebastian:
Accusing the Magisterium of contradicting itself is what we would call quintessential Protestantism.

Lionel:
This will emerge as Liberals put forward new doctrine as Magisterial.

Sebastian:

You begin your criticism of EWTN by saying: “The Magisterium of the Church says all need to enter the Church for salvation. (Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,845, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).” All of this is true but it is not the only thing the Church says on the subject.

Lionel:
Here we go again. All of this is true but we have some new theory which is magisterial.

Sebastian:

That seems to be where you miss the boat. You keep what you want and discard what you don’t like. That of course leads to taking statements out of context. When you take statements out of on

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

Sebastian Fama:

Part One I am truly amazed that this is still an issue. Fr. Leonard Feeney has been thoroughly discredited.

Lionel:
In the Jewish Left media supported by Catholic liberals intentionally or unintentionally.


Sebastian:
Only those who seek to divide the Church continue to carry his banner.

Lionel:
It could be said of those who put forward new doctrines and reject traditional teaching.

Sebastian:

To begin with, it is important to note that just as Protestants have no right to privately interpret Scripture Catholics have no right to privately interpret Magisterial documents.

Lionel:
Correct.

Sebastian:
Accusing the Magisterium of contradicting itself is what we would call quintessential Protestantism.

Lionel:
This will emerge as Liberals put forward new doctrine as Magisterial.

Sebastian:

You begin your criticism of EWTN by saying: “The Magisterium of the Church says all need to enter the Church for salvation. (Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,845, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).” All of this is true but it is not the only thing the Church says on the subject.

Lionel:
Here we go again. All of this is true but we have some new theory which is magisterial.

Sebastian:

That seems to be where you miss the boat. You keep what you want and discard what you don’t like. That of course leads to taking statements out of context. When you take statements out of on

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

continued
Sebastian:

You said: “Lumen Gentium 16 and LG 8 are not exceptions to the dogma since we do not know any explicit case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, good conscience or with ‘elements of sanctification’.”
Whether or not someone makes it to heaven is not dependant on my knowing about it. All I need to know is that the teaching is true.

Lionel:
The teaching is true as a possibility and not the general rule, the ordinary means of salvation.
We accept the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance, good conscience, elements of sanctification.
We do not then assume that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.
The dogma says every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church and the dogma does not mention exceptions. Vatican Council II does not also say that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.

So one could imply they are exceptions or say they are not.
EWTN assumes they are exceptions. Hence the criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s ‘literal interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

continued

Catholic Mission said...

continued
Sebastian:
LG 8 & 16 tell me just that. God takes care of the details of each person’s judgment. I don’t need to know what God is doing in order for it to be valid.

Lionel:
The issue is not if they are valid nor not but does do they contradict the dogma or not.
If they contradict the dogma then we can criticize the literal interpretation of the dogma. If they do not , then they are no relevant to this issue and Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct.

Sebastian:
EWTN rightly pointed out the following: “the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."
Lionel:
Correct. The Magisterium no where says that these cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma or that they are visible to us.

Sebastian:
You responded by saying: “EWTN is contradicting the Magisterial documents cited above.” What does that statement have to do with the question at hand? You either agree with Vatican I or you disagree. Which is it? Does the Magesterium have the authority to determine and expound the meaning of its Tradition? The answer of course is yes.

Lionel:
The Magisterium in the Allocution quoted says all people need to enter the Catholic Church and there could be exceptions of invincible ignorance etc.
There can be two interpretations:
1.EWTN: All people need to defacto enter the Church for salvation and there can be de facto known cases in invincible ignorance etc who do not have to enter the Church.
2. All people need to defacto enter the Church for salvation and there can be some people in invincible ignornce whom we accept in principle,that they can be saved and they are known only to God.
N.1 contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction and N.2 does not.
N. 1 says that a defined dogma has defacto exceptions. This is heresy.
N.1 suggests that the pope is not infallible ex cathedra and the defined dogma is contradicted by Vatican Council II etc.
So which is correct ?
Continued

Catholic Mission said...

continued

Sebastian:
EWTN then quotes Pope Pius IX on the very topic we are discussing. He said: “We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?”
Lionel:
True. This statement above is saying every one needs to enter the Church. I agree. De facto every one needs to enter the Church.
It also mentions that there can those in invincible ignorance. This is acceptable as long as it is not assumed that invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma or the earlier part of this statement.

Sebastian:
You answered with: “EWTN assumes that ‘those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion’ are an exception to the ‘rigorist interpretation’ which is that the Apostolic Roman Church ‘is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge.’”
EWTN isn’t assuming anything.

Lionel:
When EWTN says that Fr.Leonard Feeney was checked for his literal interpretation of the dogma then EWTN assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma.Hence they assume Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.

Catholic Mission said...

Sebastian:
They merely presented you with the words of Pope Pius IX. Of course they agree with the pope as they are faithful Catholics. But at the end of the day there is no need for EWTN to assume anything. The pope spells it out quite nicely: “we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. Sounds pretty clear to me!
Lionel:
It sounds pretty clear to me too. There is no assuming that invincible ignorance is defacto known to us and so it contradicts the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Sebastian:
The bottom line is that you have a problem with Pope Pius IX.

Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney when it refers to the dogma, the infallible statement. So why should I have a problem with Pope Pius XII.
The Letter was a critisim of the Archbishop of Boston who assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were defacto exceptions to the dogma and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Sebastian:
You focus on EWTN so your argument won’t sound like what it is – a rejection of Church authority.

Lionel:
The Church authority can be interpreted in two ways. I have mentioned it earlier.

Sebastian:
You then criticized the late Cardinal Cushing. What is that all about? The quote is from Pope Pius IX.
Lionel:Cushingism is related to the issue.

Catholic Mission said...

Sebtian:
Part Two :
EWTN further backs up its argument by presenting a quote from Pius IX’s encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 where he says pretty much the same thing: “It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.”

Lionel:
Pope Pius mentions that there can be persons saved in invincible ignorance.
Yes they can be saved in invincible ignorance. Fine. We accept this.
Where does he say in this text that they are exceptions to the dogma ?

Sebstian:
Then you said: “Invincible ignorance is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” Yes it is.

Lionel:
If it is an explicit exception then we would have to know these cases on earth. We do not know any such case. So how can it be an explicit exception to the dogma.

Sebastian:
Pope Pius just said it in an encyclical.

Lionel:He just mentioned invincible ignorance. One has to assume that it is an explicit exception.

Sebastian:
How did you miss that?

Lionel:
Since Pope Pius does not say anywhere that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto exceptions. Read the passage again.
continued

Catholic Mission said...

continued
Sebastian :
You are only responsible for what you know. This has always been the teaching of the Church. We were taught this as kids.
Lionel:
Yes we agree that those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved. The issue is that we must not assume that we know who these cases are and then imply that it contradicts the dogma.
Sebsastian:

Prior to Vatican II, children were taught the faith from the Baltimore Catechisms. In Catechism number 3, on page 106 – question 185, and page 39 – question 69, you will find the following:

185. Who is punished in hell? Those are punished in hell who die in mortal sin; they are deprived of the vision of God and suffer dreadful torments, especially that of fire, for all eternity.

69. What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal? To make a sin mortal these three things are necessary: First, the thought, desire, word, action, or omission must be seriously wrong; second, the sinner must know that it is seriously wrong; third, the sinner must fully consent to it.

So only a mortal sin can damn you to hell.
Lionel:
A mortal sin unconfessed at the time of death can damn a Catholic to Hell.It is God only who can know those three conditions. So it is irrelevant in sense for us to judge.
Sebastian:
And in order to be guilty of a mortal sin, you must know that you are committing one!
Lionel:
There are some sins which are always grave and they are always mortal sins even if the person claims that they are not.
This is the teaching Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul II. It says a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the outward action indicates the inner intention. This is contrary to the liberal interpretation of the Catechism on mortal sin.
Immodesty is a mortal sin.If there is an exception it will be known and judged only by God.
Sebastian:
Hence, if you don't know, you are not guilty.
Lionel:
There could be exceptional cases. However in general a person knows within his heart what is good and what is a sin.
Sebastian:
Jesus Himself teaches this very thing in John 9:40-41...
EWTN went on to say: “These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium.”

To which you responded: “It depends on the interpretation. Do we interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism?”

Why do you keep trying to spin this into something that it is not?

Lionel:
Cushingism is the spin. It says every one needs to enter the Church accept for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It assumes that these cases are known to us and so an exception to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney. You have unknowingly used this interpretation too.

Feeneyism affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and does not claim that the baptism of desire etc are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
So we have two ways to interpret magisterial texts.Same text but different interpretations.

continued

Catholic Mission said...

Sebstian
Part Three

As for point number one: EWTN denies nothing that the Church has taught. There is also no mention of defacto exceptions in Vatican II and the Catechism.
Lionel:
You assume they are xcptions even though there is no mention of it since you suggest that Fr.Leonard Feeney was contradicted.

Sebastian:
Just as you miss the literal words in Quanto conficiamur moerore you also miss the plain words of Vatican II and the Catechism. Let’s take a look at what they had to say in paragraphs 846 to 848:

Lionel:
CCC 846 and 848 affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma. It is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

“How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body

Lionel:
All salvation comes through Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.

This includes those saved with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and those saved in invincibl ignorance and the baptism of desire.

Sebastian:
: 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.

Lionel:
This is the ordinary means of salvation, faith and baptism.This is affirming the dogma.

Sebstian:

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.

Lionel:
Those who know about the Church and do not enter are oriented to Hell as compared to those in invincible ignorance.

Sebastian:

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.

Lionel:
Those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved. These cases are known only to God. The Catechism does not say that we know these cases or that they are exceptions to the dogma.

Sebastian:
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. (CCC 846-848)”

Lionel:
Those in invincible ignorance can be saved.
So none of this contradicts the dogma as it was known for centuries.
continued

Catholic Mission said...

continued
Sebastian:
Once again that is pretty clear stuff. And it is nothing new as you would have us believe.

Lionel:
Yes it is clear however I am not assuming that the text refers to explicitly known cases saved with the baptism of desire.
Since those saved in invincibl ignorance etc are not defacto known the above text affirms the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Sebastian:

Consider the following:

St. Augustine's position is also consistent with Vatican II. "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church,...

Lionel:
Yes his position is consistent with Vatican Council II and with one of the two interpretations.

Sebastian:

Clement of Rome, a contemporary of the Apostles, wrote, "Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God" (Letter to the Corinthians, no. 7 [AD 95]).

Lionel:
Yes as mentioned earlier salvation is a possibility in exceptional cases and these cases are known only to God. Since we do not know explicit cases they do not contradict the literal meaning of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
continued

Catholic Mission said...

Sebastian:

If you so desire I can provide you with additional quotes from other early fathers.

Lionel:
As long as you use the defacto-dejure interpretation and not the defacto-defacto analysis of EWTN.

Explicitly (defacto) every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism for salvation and dejure (in principle) and in theory we accept that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance etc. Practically we can never know these cases.

Catholic Mission said...

continued

Part Four

Paul clearly teaches that we are judged by our intentions. "Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes..
He expands on this in Romans 2:13-16, "For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God,...
Their conflicting thoughts would accuse them if they suspected but ignored the fact that God required them to be members of His Church.
Lionel:
True. It is God only who can judge. So we cannot postulate that the majority of people on earth will be saved or less would be saved.
However it is also to be noted that those born with Original Sin and commit mortal sins are oriented to Hell. Hence the need for the baptism of water.
So in general non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they receive the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith. There could be exceptional cases known to God.

Sebastian:
Your second closing point is an outright falsehood based on your inability to see what is literally before you. EWTN in no way implied that popes and councils were in error. Any honest neutral observer would agree.
Lionel:
The popes in the ordinary Magisterium and three Councils in the extra ordinary Magisterium have given us the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The saints, like Fr.Leonard Feeney, taught that every one on earth needs to enter the Church formally for salvation. EWTN and you say no. You assume the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are defacto exceptions to the dogma.

Sebastian:
As for your final point, EWTN did not slander a priest in good standing with the Church. It is clear from the Letter of the Holy Office that Fr. Feeney is responsible for his own problems.
Lionel:
EWTN does not mention that the excommunication of Fr.Feeney was lifted during his lifetime without him having to recant.

Sebastian:
EWTN is only acknowledging the situation.
Lionel:
The lifting of the excommunication for disobedience was a reality, a situation.

Sebastian:
Furthermore, if you would have done a search of the EWTN site you would have found an article by Michael J. Mazza entitled...
Lionel:
There is a review of that article on my blog.

Sebastian:
The situation is quite simple really, Feeney propagated a heretical teaching.

Lionel:
According to the Archbishop and Jesuits with their explicitly known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

Sebastian:
Rome tried to correct him. He rejected the correction. Consequently, he was excommunicated.

Lionel:
He was disobedient to the Archbishop who gave us all a new doctrine.

Sebastian:
There is no way around it, Fr. Feeney discredited himself.

Lionel:
After some 60-plus years we now know that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma and that there is no magisterial text which contradicts the dogma.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct. This is something objective and factual for all to see.

Sebastian:
His followers can spin it any way they like. Unfortunately they put their own souls in jeopardy. Jesus was very clear when He said to His apostles “He who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Give it up Lionel. Accept Christ on His own terms. Demanding that He get in line with your thinking can only end in disaster.

Lionel: I have tried to show you here that there are two intrpretations of the same magisterial text. We have to choose one.Th heretical irrational one or the one according to the popes, Councils, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney.