Posted on 01/26/2005 8:18:19 AM PST by gbcdoj
We have a doctrine, for Heaven's sake. Literally for Heaven's sake.
So, what are you getting at? Maybe my brain is noodles right now too, and I'm just not getting the point you want to make. It seems very simple to me.
There is no biblical support for your assertion that
the Catholic Church can "save" anyone.The Catholic church cannot purchase from God anything that He has created!
To assert that the blood of his only "Son" is insufficent
ransom is delusional and non-biblical!
Right. The question is how those who are not incorporated into the Catholic Church as members are saved. JP II writes: "For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." (Redemptoris missio, 10).
pascendi's argument is that this (the Pope's teaching) is a heresy.
Ok, perhaps you misunderstood. The purpose of that post was to call this thread to the attention of folks that might find it interesing.
If your response was an attempt at humor, it failed. Badly.
claptrap, I am afraid that you have not read what I wrote. I certainly never stated that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient.
So, in my way of thinking, after Baptism, when all ones sins are washed away, we partake of the Sacrament of Reconciliation to maintain that state of grace. Of course, that grace is heightened through prayer, Mass attendance, Rosaries, works of mercy, etc. etc.
And if a person sins grievously, then we must partake of the Sacrament of Reconciliation again. Yes, it is a lifelong and ongoing effort in which we must persevere.
Even St. Paul in speaking of the goal of salvation spoke of running the race and continually recommitting to the loving of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
So, where am I wrong and being a proponent of heresy? (Which, BTW, I do not think I am.)
The Church teaches that they, too, can attain salvation.
Peter is not the rock that Christ said he "would build his Church on" it was Peters recognition that Christ was Gods
Son that is the entierity of the gospel "Jesus is Gods Son"
that is all and faith in Jesus is all you need to be saved
the pope and all his minions cannot help you!
Along the lines of "All who seek God with a sincere heart will receive salvation."?
Yes. That is the teaching of the Church.
The presence of theological speculation, in and of itself, does not imply we are free to believe either way. We are free to speculate, yes, but we may not accept or retain those speculations which, if concluded, would negate or call into question a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. So therefore, we are actually not free to accept and hold all speculations.
"The comparison with Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is invalid - St. Robert wrote after Lateran IV, Florence, Trent, and Unam Sanctam."
It most certainly is valid. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined and declared in the 1800's, but to be sure, unlike the matter at hand here, it was uniquely different in that it really could be shown to be the always-known and well accepted dogma of the Church, particularly in the East.
This is a fact: Thomas unwittingly concluded wrongly in regards to the Immaculate Conception. But then again, St. Thomas would have told you himself that the conclusions of theology are subject to error. Theology uses the principles of Faith as premises, but it syllogizes to conclusions... by that very fact, error is possible. Not to mention the admixture into the syllogisms of premises which are not doctrine but rather are principles derived from human reason. All of which is well and good to do, but it must be reckonized that the conclusions are indeed subject to error.
"But the dogmas of the Church must always be understood in the sense the Church has held and holds them, and we can discover this by consulting the approved theologians of the time."
That helps, yes. But it is a secondary source, not the source of dogma itself.
"I quoted the Fathers to show that this was no innovation. You quote from Ambrose 10 years earlier, but he clearly realized his error by 397 - if the two quotes contradict (I think they can be harmonized). And Chrysostom's quote doesn't speak of martyrs, purposefully, I think. With respect to the citation of St. Gregory Nazianzeus, he says elsewhere that there is a baptism of blood (Oration 39)."
Plus, St. Augustine bounces all over the place, finally deciding in his Retractions that nobody ought to doubt the matter any further.
But see? They're all over the place, the whole lot of them. This in and of itself should be more than enough evidence that, hey, we aren't dealing with a doctrine here, but theological speculations concerning difficult situations we don't understand.
"My position is that, at death, one who is not a member of the Church but is within the Catholic Church can be saved."
But see, I don't get the distinction you're making between "within" and "member". I'm looking that and asking... what is the difference?
"You are exhibiting dogmas and speaking as if the Church has defined them regarding all those who are not members of the Mystical Body, but there is no reason to believe this. Before and after Florence theologians commonly affirmed baptism of desire, as St. Thomas did."
Again, we have other saints and long-since dead theologians denying it.
"The distinction that I make between members of the Church and those who are within the Church but are not members is the same that is made in Fr. Fenton's article that I posted. You apparently didn't read it, which is unfortunate. I would ask that you do, because he lays out the traditional position on this issue quite brilliantly. Quoting from his summary: (2) Although the Church is the only social unit on earth working for the objectives of Jesus Christ, there are individuals who, through the power of God's grace, work for that same objective without being in any way members of the Church. These are the individuals who are "within" the Catholic Church by a salutary votum or desiderium. This votum or desiderium is salutary only when it is enlightened by true supernatural faith and motivated by true charity, and, obviously, only when it is impossible for the individual to be "within" the Church as a member. The individuals who are "within" the Church only by a salutary votum or desiderium pray and work, against fierce opposition, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Incarnation.
But see the bolded part? That's not doctrine. He's saying this, yes, and it sounds cool, but the Church simply hasn't defined that. Nor has it been the unanimous consent of theologians; not by a long shot.
Now look the underlined part. By supernatural faith... but, that can only be found within the Catholic Church! In other words, while assuming them to be in a condition outside the Church, it simultaneously has already placed them inside the Church and partakers in supernatural faith. If they have this, then they would never have been considered outside in the first place.
"The society which is the only true supernatural kingdom of God on earth in the dispensation of the New Testament is composed or made up of its members. The men and women who have a salutary votum or desiderium of entering the Church are "within" it insofar as they are working and fighting within it for the attainment of the objectives of Jesus Christ. Yet they are definitely not parts or members of this society."
This is sheer speculation. This is not doctrine. But look at this, though, in comparison to the above speculation:
Trent, Session 7, Canon 8: "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema."
"I'm still waiting for the citation from Lamentabili or Pascendi of a Modernist doctrine and the proof that it's contained in my writings."
What I'm figuring is that, in moving this conversation along, there will be enough accumulated text to make for a decent layout of the claim.
"Were Cardinal Ottaviani and Pius XII modernist, in your view, insofar as the Cardinal signed and Pius XII approved Suprema Haec Sacra? Do you consider this letter of the Holy Office Modernist?"
One of the first things you should understand is that I don't look for traditional Catholicism as if it is contained in people, or represented by certain persons. This would be to fall victim to the very sort of personalization of the Catholic Faith which is so very characteristic of average modern Catholic. People serve as hosts to changing opinions, so to speak. I'm going to be looking exclusively at the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
About the Holy Office letter, last week I wrote up something on it, and I'll post it below. It does in fact pertain directly to the conversation here.
I've never gotten in a fight with the Orthodox, so maybe I'm missing something, I don't know.
Actually, that's not the teaching of the Church, Salvation. It is actually an opinion condemned by the Church.
I guess we can agree to disagree because that is not what St. Paul says.
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
Note the use of the term Axiom. Words like these in philosophy and theology have very specific meanings. While up pretty far up there on word-wise in denoting unchangable or immutable principle, Axiom nevertheless falls short of being fully explicit: it isn't just an axiom, this "outside the Church, no salvation". It's an infallible dogma of the Catholic Church.
After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Two issues are raised: one is the charge that "outside the Church there is no salvation" was not being understood properly, as if some heresy were afoot. The other is a charge that disobedience or insubordination of some variety was afoot. The true heart of the discussion resides solely in a controversy concerning the first, the doctrinal element.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
True.
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.
True, and well said. In fact, most of the first part of the letter is actually a very eloquent reiteration of Catholic dogma.
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.
True.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
True.
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
True.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
True. HOWEVER... you may notice something here. The way it is written, the reader is led to infer something that is not necessarily true. This is very unique to, and common in most post-conciliar documents; this particular text, obviously pre-council, is a forerunner of what's to come.
Here's what I mean. Let's take this statement on the face of it. Is it true as written? Absolutely.
But notice how it introduces the qualifer: "no one ... who knows". Without actually saying so, the reader is left to infer that ignorance exempts one from the truth of the statement. The reader automatically assumes this:
"If they know and don't submit to the Church, well then yeah, they can't be saved. But if they don't know, well, that must be different. They probably can be saved if they don't know."
But the statement didn't say that. The reader is merely left to infer this. This way, the one making the statement is in a certain sense held harmless. The fact of the matter is, ignorance doesn't exempt them. Why not? Very simple: ignorance does not remove Orginal Sin. Original sin has to be remedied. The sacrament of baptism does this. Ignorance doesn't. That's doctrine.
This is a classic example of the carefully crafted statements that have become so common in the modern Church. See how it isn't an untruth on the face of it, but how it leads the reader to infer something that cannot rightly be concluded without flying in the face of the known dogma of the Church. This can be easily pulled off; all one needs to do is to predicate the truth of a selective part instead of of the whole thing. Even though it's true for the whole thing, instead of just the part. This way, the reader assumes it is only true for the part, and not for the whole. Example:
Let's say you're standing in a line for a movie, for which it is known by all that a ticket is required for entry. People of all races are in the line. Somebody comes over the loudspeaker and says this:
"All Pacific Islanders not displaying a ticket will not be admitted into the movie."
Is the statement true? Well, yeah, sure. But automatically everybody of every other race is going to get it into their heads that maybe they don't really need a ticket. Maybe. True?
Probably not the best of analogies. I'll wrack my brains for another if that doesn't seem to work. But hopefully you see the point: people are immediately going to take the letter's above paragraph to mean that you're only capable of losing salvation only if you first have specific knowledge of the Church, and if you don't, you might have a chance with an ignorance plea. But nothing, nothing in world is going to mask over this reality: Original Sin. Ignorance or no ignorance, knowledge itself is not the determinate principle. Original Sin is the determinate principle. Not knowledge or the lack of it; nope.
Try another analogy; perhaps this will work: using the structure of the letter's sentence, but changing the subject:
"Therefore, no one will avoid being fined and penalized who, knowing they must pay taxes, nevertheless refuses to report income or withholds payment from the Federal Government."
Needless to say, ignorance won't work as an excuse in this example, though anyone is welcome to try. It won't work. But it sure looks like it could when you see it laid out in this manner.
"Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory."
True.
"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807)."
But Trent didn't talk about just the effects, saying that only the effects were necessary. It said that the actual Sacraments themselves were necessary. Look what it says above: "not by intrinsic necessity". But intrinsic necessity is exactly what Trent predicates of the Sacraments. Check it out:
7th Session, Canon 1: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.
Truly and intrinsically a sacrament. And Trent declares their necessity. Same session, Canon 4:
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."
The Holy Office letter also also mentions two Sacraments, baptism and confession, which differ from each in regards to the nature of their necessity. Theologically, baptism is a necessity of means and precept, while the sacrament of Penance is a necessity only of precept. The two Sacraments cannot be treated in a manner which would equate their nature of necessity. Look at session 7, canon 4 again. Take note of this fact first: Baptism is the entryway sacrament. No one can have any of the other sacraments unless they've been baptised first. Now the reason it says "though all are not necessary for each one" is because obviously, one does not need to be married, or have had the sacrament of matrimony, in order to enter the kingdom of God. Or they don't need to have been a priest. Or they didn't need to be confirmed.
Or maybe they don't need to go to confession! Maybe they have never committed a mortal sin since their baptism. Conceivable, and for some souls, a possible lifelong reality. Now of course the Church says that one must go at least once a year; very true. But the person who goes, while fulfilling a rightful precept of the Church in this regard, need not go into that confessional with a mortal sin on their soul in order to fulfill the Church's command, to be sure.
At any rate though, it may well be the case that, for all reasons other than the Church's once-a-year rule, that confession isn't a necessity, as one had not committed mortal sin.
Baptism differs: Baptism is absolutely necessary both as means and precept, as not all the others are necessary for each person in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Except, of course, Baptism. Necessary by both means, and precept.
This paragraph fails the distinction between baptism and confession. But where it really fails is in the statement that the sacraments are necessary in their effects only, and not by intrinsic necessity. What Trent is saying is that the Sacraments, though not all, are necessary by their very intrinsic nature.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
Look what it says. It says that you don't need to be incorporated into the Church to be saved. Pure and simple, it just said that. That's a denial of all the clear and concise reiterations found in the first couple paragraphs of the letter that were so well written, claiming that "outside the Church there is no salvation". It just wiped that all away right here.
What's more, it says they can be united to Her by desire or longing. But ignorance was cited as the excuse. Question: How is it that one can desire and long for something that they are supposed to be ignorant of? I suppose in some sense that's possible. But there is a conflict here. Desiring and longing, and being ignorant do not go hand in hand concerning the same object. Here is the conflict brought to the fore in the next paragraph:
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
This is confused. The person is in invincible ignorance, yet has the wherewithall and presence of mind to want to be conformed to the will of God?
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But what this letter is putting forth is most certainly is NOT clearly taught Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. Anyone may wish to look it up and read it. Mystici Corporis Christi most clearly states the contrary, that the Catholic Church is synonymous with the Mystical Body of Christ... not that the Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that they are one and the same.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Well... right. Of course that's right. The letter returned briefly at this point to tell the truth again, like it did in the first couple paragraphs of the letter.
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).
The reason they cannot be sure of their salvation is because, unless they enter the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church before death, per the infallible declaration of Pope Eugene IV in a statement to the Univerals Church (not by private correspondence), they cannot be saved. That's Catholic doctrine, and that's what the pope was talking about in that encyclical when he said that. The letter twists his meaning to make it look like they are only less sure of their salvation than if they were in the Catholic Church. In other words: the letter is alluding to salvation outside the Church... it talks of it only in terms of being less certain than if the soul were in the Church. That still means only one thing of note: that there actually CAN be salvation outside the Church, which of course, is a complete repudiation of the doctrine of the Church which the letter upholds so outstandingly in the first couple paragraphs.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
Look at Trent, Session 7, Canon 8: "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema."
Oops.
Furthermore, the above paragraph plays upon the words of Pope Pius XII in referring to this phrase of his out of context:
"they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church." --Pius XII
The letter tries to render the Sacraments themselves as being the "helps" that Pope Pius XII was talking about. But Pius XII wasn't referring to the Sacraments. He would have been in violation of Trent 7, Canon 5:
Canon 5: "If anyone says that these sacraments have been instituted for the nourishment of faith alone, let him be anathema."
They're not just helps. They are necessities.
Note the key phrase used in the above paragraph from the letter: supernatural faith. This is where the letter leans on orthodox teaching by a thread. In order to qualify for this salvation outside the Church, one must have supernatural Faith, the letter says. But the Church has always taught: Supernatural Faith can only be found within the Church.
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
The case has not been made. Not by a long shot. What case has in fact been made, however, is the case for the very foundation of the new Ecumenism, whereby when followed through to its absurd conclusion, on finds that those who hold and practice the Faith are deemed outside it, and those who are outside it are deemed within it's fold. This letter sets the precedent, and the self-same style characterizes the formulation of later documents such as Lumen Gentium.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
This letter and what it contains weren't declarations. It was a letter to an Archbishop. We all know the formula which represents a true declaration concerning faith and morals, which formula itself was declared to the universal Church in Vatican I, and had been always known and taught by the Universal Church before Vatican I. This letter does not at all meet the barest resemblence to an action of the Supreme Pontiff rendering an infallibly binding definition or declaration.
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
At this point, the letter ceases to discuss the doctrinal matter itself, and moves to disciplinary matters.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Again, this does not address the doctrinal matter itself, but delves into a matter of discipline.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "imprimatur," which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Same thing here... not speaking here any more of the matter of the doctrine in question.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
After having successfully blurred together a doctrinal matter and a disciplinary issue, this portion of the letter makes it appear as if "Rome has spoken" regarding a doctrinal matter which supposedly needs to be adhered to, which is pretty much this: that there really IS salvation outside the Church. This letter does not constitute Rome speaking definitively on the matter. Nor is there any salvation outside the Church.
Note that in the course of the letter, no heresy has been explicitly exposed. They never did nail Feeney on a any charge of heresy concerning anything at all, in the ultimate analysis. They only nailed him for disciplinary matters.
He never changed his mind. He simply kept believing the infallible dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, without qualification. Later, they came to visit him. Without asking him to recant anything or accept any new intrepretation of the dogma of "outside the Church there is no salvation", they simply said that he was reconciled with the Church, and left. It was that abrupt.
They couldn't pin heresy charges on him, because he was guilty of no heresy at all in this matter, and they knew it. So they let him go. He died never changing his mind one iota, in full Communion with the Catholic Church.
But what is it that Catholics believe now? Any number of different things which lead them to believe that there is salvation outside the Church after all. When there really isn't.
Note that during the course of the entire letter, the specific error of Feeney is not cited. Rather, the bulk of the letter consists of a very adamate apologia for a new interpretation of an old dogma. It's less about a supposed error of Feeney's, and more to do with bolstering a theological proposal. When it does treat of Feeney directly, it treats not of a specific error of his, but rather, references to an obstinance of his part towards the theological proposals being made in the body of the letter.
In other words, he's in the way of a theological proposal. That's why obedience is concentrated upon, and why apologia is made for the new theological proposal, instead of really endeavoring to scope out the specific error of Fr. Feeney.
Note also that one of the chief grievances against Fr. Feeney ("...it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical...") has also been completely taken off the table since that time, interestingly enough, by the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 212 §3 They [Christ’s faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
But if anyone ever tells you that they can seek Him and find Him in any other way than by means of the Catholic Church, now that is what is condemned.
Sorry for any confusion.
So, what you are saying is that there will be only Catholics in heaven????
I don't think so.
The first person in heaven after Christ was the good thief -- a sinner and not a Catholic at all, but rather a fellow Jew.
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.