Posted on 02/10/2004 7:02:28 AM PST by evets
Feeney was a quite useful priest so long as he kept to his mission given him by Richard Cardinal Cushing of establishing St. Benedict House at Harvard and to use Feeney's considerable intellect in a direct assault on communist ideology at Harvard. He then took off on his own tack and started the heretical view that unless you are a practicing and properly baptized Roman Catholic, you will go to hell. In one book shown to me by a Feeneyite client, he also degenerated into Donatism by suggesting that readers be baptized often because you never know whether your previous baptism(s) were marked by the correct intention.
The notion that he did not repent and repudiate his heresy is the understandable lie of those who insisted on continuing his prior heresy and simply denied that he had repudiated the heresy. That they say so does not make it so just like the claims of SSPX that they are not REALLY sedevacantist or not REALLY anti-papal or not REALLY schismatic or not REALLY operating on their own personal interpretation of Tradition (YOPIOT AND TOPIOT) does not prove that they are right as to any of those things or not REALLY what they are.
Your YOPIOT theory as to the meaning of extra ecclesia nulla salus is like some socially insecure boys who just cannot enjoy the tree house if girls are allowed in. There is a certain poverty of spirit in the notion of the Feeneyites that EENS means that they are an ever more exclusive club of the elect with ever more of those who take umbrage at the grabbing of their lapels by hysterics heading straight to hell. Ironically, the Feeneyites put themselves into an impossible intellectual contortion whereby they would effectively condemn themselves to hell but for the happy fact that their heresy, like all heresies, is wrong. See the regular schismatic whining about: Why can't the pope be as mean to the heterodox as he is to "St." Marcel, the Excommunicatus?
If Feeneyites or SSPX, for that matter, REALLY believe their deviations from Catholicism and Truth, via the route of invincible ignorance and despite superficial appearances of sophistication, any of them may yet be saved. In the case of Feeneyites, that would be in spite of themselves.
Baptism ought to be performed by a priest (or a deacon) in Church in rdinary circumstances so as to create a paper trail for First Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, et al., but strictly speaking need not be. Protestant baptisms and other baptisms outside the Church should not be for the mere purpose of creating membership in the Church but should also be for the forgiveness of any sin, and for the purpose of washing the baptized in the blood of the Lamb.
Not only must a marriage of a Catholic such as you describe be annulled before the Catholic may remarry in the Church to another but also, even a marriage of two non-Catholics, one of whom later wishes to marry another in a Catholic ceremony must also be annulled first.
Now this was the point I was trying (badly) to make with Maximillian. I was attempting to point out that the Catechism seems to be at odds with the ancient and extra-biblical dogma of whether or not salvation is limited to those in the Roman Catholic church.
Making a distinction between the small "c" catholic church (the church universal or Body of Christ) and the large "C" Roman Catholic Church is paramount to the discussion.
Exclusivity vs. inclusivity denotes a doctrine that has changed 180 degrees from ancient interepretation to modern, thereby making me question the "ordinary infallibility of the magesterium". If, in fact, I have misunderstood the exclusivity argument, so then, have many, many in the Catholic faith, including those gifted to teach.
Virtually none of the rest of what you name (i.e. other than the Roman Catholic Church) are Catholic Churches at all. If a moose calls himself a kumquat it does not make him one.
Down through the years, as you may have noticed when you go to church on Sunday for example, various groups have broken off of the Roman Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ upon Simon bar Joanh, whom He renamed Peter or the Rock, and guaranteed by Jesus Christ Himself as permanent. Early Church Fathers like the brilliant Tertullian tragically fell into the schism or heresy of Ultramontanism before death. There were Donatists, practitioners of the Arian heresy, Albigensians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and many other early heresies. Some may initially have had apostolic succession and disappeared after the succession was broken. Some never had apostolic succession as understood by Catholic Churches: Lutheranism, Methodism, Amish, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Baptists, Congregationalists and similar "reformed" churches. They have always been without the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the continued appearance of bread and wine and without the keys of authority to bind and loose. They have not had the Mass in the making present upon the altar of the one and only sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ upon the altar at each Mass. Without Apostolic Succession, there is no legitimate and valid priesthood, no validly consecrated bishops, no Mass, no Holy Orders, no valid Eucharist, and an absence of other essentials.
There are several remaining categories. Some which you mention, but not many, MAY have some rough form of Apostolic Succession. The ones that might deserve a look would be those named Old Catholic or Old Roman Catholic. Their names sound like potential schismatic or heretical Churches which took the trouble to find some reneagde bishop to consecrate some bishops (not unlike SSPX) while deviating fatally on doctrine. They might be related to Old Catholic Churches of Utrecht or the post Vatican I (mid 19th century) Council Churches which were formed by dissident Catholics rejecting papal infallibility and/or conciliar infallibility in communion with the pope or rejecting the Immaculate Conception. Rome probably does not address the alleged apostolic succession of such miniscule sects and time usually takes them deeper into division and heresy. They are certainly denominations just like Albigensians, Arians, Lutherans and the rest.
The Anglicans have long claimed apostolic succession. At the time of Henry VIII's apostasy, only St. John Fisher resisted him seriously among the contemporary Roman bishops and he was martyred for it. That left many validly consecrated bishops who apostasized and joined the "Church of England" headed by......Henry VIII. The matter was investigated at the order of Pope Leo XIII in the last quarter of the 19th century. He determined that there was a failure of succession for specified reasons which I do not recall. The sinfulness of Henry's bishops and their apostasy did not deprive them of the sacramental authority to consecrate bishops and ordain priests. Whatever the problem was, it must have occurred through irregularity of consecration procedures, probably in the 17th century. Things got sloppy after Archbishop Laud's noble attempts to return to orthodoxy in the early 17th century under the Stuarts.
That leaves the Eastern Orthodox Church which has been separated from Rome for nearly 1000 years but has scrupulously maintained validity of its Apostolic Succession, its Mass, its Holy Orders, its sacraments. The differences center certainly on the Filioque and the rejection of papal supremacy by the Orthodox and its assertion by Rome. There are different nuances in other respects.
To the precise degree that any of these churches deviate from the doctrine and discipline of Rome, actual Catholics regard them as wrong. If that makes us sound like a cult, so be it. Why should Catholics care, so long as the "cult" is Roman Catholicism. We do not accept false moral equivalency.
Most churches (except the Eastern Orthodox) which have "issues" with Rome are not at all Catholic whatevr it might please them to say. This is not a metter of all win and each will have prizes.
Whether a particular sedevacantist sect has apostolic succession is entirely dependent upon the validity of the ordination of its priests and consecrations of its bishops however illicit. For example, each and every SSPX bishop has been excommunicated but they were each VALIDLY consecrated. Thus, regrettably, they have stolen the legitimate goods of apostolic succession. Each of the excommunicated bishops so created has the power go consecrate bishops and to ordain priests. For this crime of grand theft ecclesiastical, those bishops were excommunicated. They were illegally or illicitly consecrated but the consecrations were valid nonetheless.
Finally, the endless arguments by analogy to St. Catherine of Siena or to St. Athanasius or to the Eastern Orthodox are not apt and are simply puffery by SSPX. The validity of the SSPX Mass and sacraments were NEVER at issue but not by analogy to anything. Their bishops (not their priests) have genuine apostolic succession, however purloined, and that is the only issue as to validity. No one has claimed they lacked that succession. In fact the illicit possession of that succession is precisely the point of their perfidy.
BTW, I am aware of no mere priest who has been excommunicated formally for being of the SSPX although each may have excommunicated himself by adherence to the schism and each lay person adhering to the schism may have excommunicated himself or herself as well. Remember that is "adhered to the schism" not merely attended SSPX Masses.
The Jesuits were not excommunicated but suppressed in the 18th century or thereabouts for about 75 years. They apparently deserved to be suppressed. Some took refuge under the Russian Tsar Peter the Great. The trained me in the Faith way back when they were still Catholic. Nonetheless, they ought to be suppressed again since they have again become a collective viper in the bosom of the Church. Prudential errors are prudential errors not doctrinal ones.
Your proof of Mr. Gibson's ongoing involvement with SSPX or any sedevacantist schism or heresy or that he believes this pope wrong, please. For example: Who said the Masses on the set of the Passion? Is his daughter preparing for admission to some SSPX order of nuns or a Catholic order? Is his Los Angeles area chapel an SSPX chapel? How do you know this other than speculation?
Thanks for a detailed response. I realize these matters are difficult. I was just after a simple answer as to whether Catholic doctrine teaches that one has to be in the Catholic church to be saved. If that is the case that is something I was just not aware of. My wife is Catholic and I'm Protestant and I've attended church with her for years.
Most Protestant Churches consider themselves to be separate from the Church of Rome, although some Anglicans would argue a little differently on that point.
FWIW my pastor at my local Presbyterian PCA church has remarked on the term catholic church contained in the Apostle's Creed " ... I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church, the communion of saints, ..." as meaning all gospel believing churches, catholic and protestant and does not treat Catholics as being some separate entity wrt salvation etc. In fact the web site I pasted this excerpt from had the following asterisk "*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ". The important thing is faith in Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.