Posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:58 AM PDT by murphE
"Fr. Feeney never had to recant his position through all of the persecution he endured."
The Church doesn't make anyone recant their positions when they disagree with the Magesterium. Anyone holding to Fr. Feeney's narrowing of the term "salvation is limited to those in within the Roman Catholic Church" is at odds with Pope Pius.
Perhaps you should read Vatican 2 document "The Constitution of the Church" and you will find that the "Church" does not wholly subsist within the doors of the Roman Catholic Church.
"Any idea of "anonymous Christianity" is pure speculation. And ultimately it undermines the teachign of the Church"
Then you are also against the Church's teachings regarding invincible ignorance. We are not talking about Protestants who are aware of the Catholic Church and its claims and refuse to enter it. According to Feeney's definition, are you going to condemn all the people who have never heard of Christ? What sort of God is that who condemns people to hell, despite righteous living, in the face of never hearing about Christ through no fault of their own.
Regards
Very simple: If you want to read about the origin of the Catholic Church. Read the Bible. Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic Church. St. Peter was the first Pope. Jesus Christ established it. It's all there.
"Give them the smallest peg, or what appears so, not to you, but to them;- the smallest peg, on which to hang a hope of salvation without being in or actually reconciled to the church"
When someone relys on such a "peg", it is certain that there are alterior motives for not entering into the Catholic Church. If one is looking for an excuse to remain outside, then how can one be invincibly ignorant?
This teaching does not undermine evangelization into the Church, as the Church presents the fullness of faith and offers the surest means of salvation, namely, the Sacraments. However, if one reads Romans 1 and 2, one can see that one can enter heaven, as the Law is written on man's hearts. But having the Word proclaimed and receiving the graces that come with Communion are far surer in helping us achieve our eternal goal. It is much less likely that a person will be saintly without the Church's example, liturgy, Scripture, and sacraments.
Regards
Do you believe Arianism is correct by any chance? Or,better yet, do you believe in any heresy that the early Church fought against?You remind me of Charlie Brown's teacher.
...even though by saying it you may be insulting Catholics.
"They started it!"
I guess the first flame will from now on take claim. I'd rather not participate, and perhaps will, repentant for the childish tit-for-tat, withdraw from the thread and leave this one to the Catholics.
(And, hey, now at least I understand a little better why they've had wars.)
Very simple: If you want to read about the origin of the Catholic Church. Read the Bible. Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic Church. St. Peter was the first Pope. Jesus Christ established it. It's all there.
I read the Bible, thanks. Often. Know about how the church started.
Never once saw the word Catholic. Or the word Pope.
And that's okay.
There are many things said on threads started by Protestants that I might find offensive, but I don't insist they stop saying them. We have very real differences in doctrine which will never be compatible, both cannot be true. I don't mind you expressing yourself on a thread started by me, a Catholic, but I'm not going to deny my faith to make you more comfortable.
This is a misinterpretation of the Constitution "Lumen Gentium". In fact, nothing can subsist in more than one thing: "we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another" (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I q. 29 a. 2), "The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium" (CDF, Declaration Dominus Iesus, footnote 56), "The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence' of the true Church" (CDF, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff).
The letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing is, by the way, a much better source for the Catholic doctrine on 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus'. LG treats it only in a very cursory manner and simply refers to the letter of the Holy Office in the footnote for the detailed treatment.
What sort of God is that who condemns people to hell, despite righteous living, in the face of never hearing about Christ through no fault of their own.
Observe: they could not live rightly unless they belonged to the Church and believed in Christ, at least implicitly. "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'" (CCC 161).
It would be a grave error to turn invincible ignorance into some sort of sacrament. Rather, we admit two things: firstly, in the case of invincible ignorance of some parts of the Catholic Faith, it is still possible to believe the two foundational articles: that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. Every other article, says St. Thomas, is contained implicitly in these two, and so we can say "Those erring invincibly about certain articles, and believing others, are not formally heretics, but have supernatural faith, by which they believe the true articles, and so acts of perfect contrition can proceed from this, by which they will be justified and saved" - Cardinal De Lugo, De Fid., p. 169. Secondly, God, who desires all men to be saved, grants to all the possibility of participation in the fellowship of his sons. Thus St. Thomas says: "Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then [when he begins to have the use of reason], is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally" (Summa Theologiae I-II q. 89 a. 6) and also "For it pertains to divine Providence to provide whatever is necessary for salvation, when it is not impeded on his part. For if anyone such raised [in a forest], follows the lead of natural reason in doing good and fleeing evil, it must be most certainly held that God will reveal to him those things which are necessary to be believed" (De veritate, q. 14 a. 11 ad 1).
You didn't see the word "Trinity" in there either. Or a table of contents that is actually a part of the Scripture.
I think plenty of Catholics will go, he most certainly is a wonderful man and many wish to be at what would probably be his last crusade.
The Church doesn't make anyone recant their positions when they disagree with the Magesterium.
Oh yes they do. Denzinger is full of professions of faith of heretics recanting their positions.
Anyone holding to Fr. Feeney's narrowing of the term "salvation is limited to those in within the Roman Catholic Church" is at odds with Pope Pius.
No. They aren't
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. Humani Generis
Perhaps you should read Vatican 2 document "The Constitution of the Church" and you will find that the "Church" does not wholly subsist within the doors of the Roman Catholic Church.
That's not what the Latin means. Subsistit means "exists". It does not mean "is rooted in but is not limited to."
"Any idea of "anonymous Christianity" is pure speculation. And ultimately it undermines the teachign of the Church"
Then you are also against the Church's teachings regarding invincible ignorance. We are not talking about Protestants who are aware of the Catholic Church and its claims and refuse to enter it. According to Feeney's definition, are you going to condemn all the people who have never heard of Christ?
You might want to study up on what Feeney actually taught and believed. You'd be suprised.
What sort of God is that who condemns people to hell, despite righteous living, in the face of never hearing about Christ through no fault of their own.
It looks like gbcdoj already explained this as well as could be explained.
You remind me of Charlie Brown's teacher.
Okay.
I'm neither a theologian nor a seminarian.
You don't have to be.
I worry about the fights of today.
Most of the fights of today are re-hashes of the fights of yesterday. If you know them, you won't fall into the old traps of the devil.
I read and strive to obey the Word.
Within certain limits that you've established for yourself it seems.
I praise and worship the Living God.
That's good to hear. I'm sure you would want to worship him as He wants you to.
I do my best to love even my annoying neighbor. And I'm staking it all on God's grace.
Maybe it's God's grace that has shown you an either/or regarding salvation. This is the next step for you. Don't shut it out.
Feel free to do as you so choose.
I choose to try and convince you to pray to God for a light concerning the Catholic Church.
Shalom.
Na Noo Na Noo.
Na Noo Na Noo.
"Shalom" is the Hebrew word for "Peace", a phrase used in love and respect when greeting or departing from a fellow believer.
What's the translation for yours?
...but I don't insist they stop saying them.
Neither did I. I simply labelled it as "round 1" in a flame war (and I repented for the engagement), not knowing I had stumbled onto some intense-Catholic thread. I will scroll further down next time.
Rather than getting technical and combing over the Latin, I ask you, in plain language:
If a person dies is not a Roman Catholic, is he sent to hell?
The Church doesn't teach this. It seems to me that you are denying this, for example "Observe: they could not live rightly unless they belonged to the Church and believed in Christ"
How would you explain that such Church Fathers as Justin the Martyr calls Socrates and other Greek philosophers Christians several hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth was born? The Church apparently leaves salvation's door open to those who through no fault of their own, do not know Christ, but follow the Law of Love. The Spirit blows where it will, and doesn't require a person be a registered Roman Catholic to enter into a person to provide saving grace.
I have purchased a few books on the subject, and will have to read them over, as the Catechism is rather sparse on the subject.
Regards
It is very odd how some Catholics seem to resent my saying, "I am saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, Who Was and Is, and Is to come."
Should you not feel joy instead of anger?
Be very very careful when "warning" others about their salvation or lack thereof, especially when you yourselves claim no assurance.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. ...
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).
Pretty much the same thing but it's in Orkan.
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.