====================
This is done for the love of Holy Mother Church, her Lord and our Queen. by Adam S. Miller
Founder and Director of
Tower of David Ministry
=================
From MATT.16:18
THE CASE AGAINST FEENEY AND FOR BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND DESIRE
The Catholic Church teaching on No Salvation outside the church is a controversial doctrine to many people. In the latest catechism, the magisterium's understanding of the doctrine is spelled out here:
======================
Section I:
There are two erroneous presumptions present with the above opening statement. 1. Presumes that the text of the CCC is a Magisterial document. On the bottom of page 3 of the Pope's introduction to the CCC, we are told that it was compiled and put together by an "editorial committee". The Church has never exercised her binding (let alone infallible) teaching authority by means of an "editorial committee." The Magisterium is not an "editorial committee."
Also, not everything stated in the CCC is necessarily Magisterial in nature. In other words, there are numerous statements in the CCC which, IF said statements do not teach what the Church has always taught throughout her history (i.e. tradition), THEN these particular statements cannot be properly attributed to the Magisteium of the Church. They are simply the statements of Churchmen.
If certain statements are ambiguous, then, even though they may be faithful to authentic traditional Church teaching, they are still not properly magisterial statements, but simply the statements of churchmen. For the Magisterium, even in her ordinary and universal exercise, always teaches with clarity. In "Humani Generis" (1950; #21), Pope Pius XII declared:
"God has given to his Church a living Teaching Authority [i.e. Magisterium] to elucidate and explain CLEARLY what is contained in the Deposit of Faith only obscurely and implicitly... If the Church does exercise this function of teaching, either in the ordinary or the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. INDEED THE VERY OPPOSITE PROCEDURE MUST BE USED." (capitals added)
2. Fatal to Mat.1618's entire argument: The opening statement presumes that once a dogma is defined that there is (or at least may be) an understanding and meaning which goes beyond the actual words of the dogmatic formula. This very notion has been solemnly condemned by the Church. When the Church defines a dogma, in this very act (of defining) she is giving to us the EXACT way we are to believe it, understand it, profess it, spread and defend it. In other words, she IS giving us the one and only interpretation by which we must believe and understand it. Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that the Church "understands her dogmas by the very words she has once declared, and there must never be a recession from this meaning..." ("Dei Filius", ch.3; canon 3). And the Church has solemnly condemned the notion that dogmas have meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula:
St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane- Syllabus of Errors of Modernists:
"22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.--condemned
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.--condemned
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.--condemned
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.--condemned"
(see Lamentabili, #22,26,54,64 and Pascendi: Denzinger 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907). ================
[Matt.1618]
CCC 846 - Outside the Church there is no salvation. 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. LG 14
CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it throuh the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. LG 16:
=========================
Section II:
These paragraphs from the CCC do not necessarily qualify or modify, let alone deny, the necessity of water baptism and Church membership for salvation without exception. When read in light of and in subjection to what has been infallibly defined, they can (and MUST) be understood as upholding EENS and the absolute necessity of water Baptism.
Notice the first sentence in # 847 gives NO reference WHATSOEVER to ANY infallible Magisterial document. Why? Because none exists which asserts this opinion. It is therefore NOT infallible and thus open to error. This means that this novel statement is of a non-binding nature and authority. Even worse, it is a non-infallible opinion attempting to interpret that which is infallible. This turns upside-down the entire basis of authority and infallibility.
Also, that which has been infallibly defined, needs no interpretation (other than a literal reading). There is NO meaning to this, or any dogma, beyond what the words themselves declare. As pointed out above, to believe that there is has been condemned by the Church (see DNZ 2026, 2054, 2079-81, 2087)
3. Remember, according to what Vatican I defined, once a dogma is defined by the extraordinary Magisterium, then the meaning of that dogma has ALREADY BEEN determined and DEFINED for all time. This is the very PURPOSE AND NATURE of a dogmatic definition: TO DEFINE for ALL time what the Church means and HOW we are to understand and believe it. And, as Vatican II confirmed, these definitions are "irreformable by their very nature" (Lumen Gentium, 25).
[editor: "[The Pope] confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.
"...the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.
The entire working premise of Mat.16 presumes the opposite to what is intrinsic to the very nature of defined dogmas and to what the Church has defined concerning dogmas.
==============
[Matt.1618]
There are many on both sides of the equation who do not accept this teaching. Protestants do not accept that Christ set up a church as the means necessary for salvation. In this paper, I will rebut the errors of Feeney, who taught that if one who is not a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church, that person has no chance of salvation. They see former dogmatic statements from Church Councils as determining exactly this.
They see the latest Catechism on this issue as a departure from the long held truth that no one can be saved unless they are baptized Roman Catholics. There are no exceptions not only for those of other religions, or Protestants, but there is no salvation for those who die without baptism as Catechumens, or even if one is martyred for Christ without water baptism.
If one does look at some of the statements made by Church Fathers and the magisterium, there may seem to be some support for the position of Feeney. However, when we go back in history, we see that many of the same Church Fathers who seem to make Feeneyite statements, at the same time make statements that give a broader understanding of salvation. We also see even during the dogmatic definitions of the doctrine (in 1208 and 1215), the reigning pope, Pope Innocent III understood salvation to be extended to those who desired baptism, but died before receiving it. We also see the Council of Trent affirming baptism of desire, and if there were any questions at all, the Trent catechism affirms the salvation of adults who died before receiving water baptism. In fact, in the three Catechisms promulgated by the magisterium (Council of Trent Catechism, Pius X Catechism, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church), all three of them in effect categorically deny the Feeneyite view of salvation. There are no Catechisms produced by the magisterium of the Catholic Church that affirms the Feeneyite view. :
What I intend to do here is show that the above definition (CCC 846-847) in the New Catholic Catechism is not to be ignored. This definition is not irreconcilable with past definitions of the magisterium and those who are faithful Catholics must agree with this definition.
=====================
Section III:
WARNING!! He has misused the term "definition." In ecclesiastical matters of faith and morals, the word "definition" has a precise and, yes, DEFINED meaning.
The author of this article misleads his readers by equating the statements from the CCC with solemn infallible dogmatic definitions of the Church. They are not the same. Catechisms certainly can quote dogmatic definitions, but NO catechism can in and of itself pronounce its OWN dogmatic definition. Catechisms are not SOURCES of the Catholic Faith. They are simply compendiums and/or systemized presentations of Church teaching. It is the Magisterium ALONE, in her binding documents, where we have our immediate source of the Faith. (Scripture and Tradition are our remote sources of the faith.)
Therefore, paragraphs 846-848 are NOT definitions in the proper sense. As NON-infallible statements, they MUST be read in light of (subject to) what the Church has already infallibly defined as dogma.
[editor update: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1994: "The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess" (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26, Ignatius Press)-editor]
=============
[Matt.1618 simply states what he intends to show.]
snip, snip...
In this paper, there will be five parts:
Part 1 The Authority of Vatican II and the Ordinary Magisterium on the Issue
Part 2 Church Fathers
Part 3 Trent (Including texts that show that one who is justified is in state of salvation)
Part 4 Magisterial Pronouncements and Early Popes
Part 5 Feeney, Extra Ecclesiam
PART 1 THE AUTHORITY OF VATICAN II AND THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM ON THE ISSUE
When we see the next part on the Church Fathers, we see that the current teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church is is indeed in concert with many Church Fathers. In relation to the magisterium, this is no doubt a development of doctrine (as affirmed by St. Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM, 1856).
"8. We should not conclude that religion does not progress in the Church of Christ. There is great progress! But it is truly the progress of faith, which is not change. The intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge of everybody should grow and progress, like that of the whole Church of the ages. In this way we might understand more clearly what we used to believe obscurely.)"
The only authentic interpreter of past magisterial statements are not individuals, but the living magisterium, as affirmed by the DOGMATIC (not merely pastoral) CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION.:
"10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But THE TASK OF AUTHENTICALLY INTERPRETING THE WORD OF GOD, WHETHER WRITTEN OR HANDED ON, HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LIVING TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." The magisterium is thus the only authentic interpreter of past magisterial documents.
===================
Section IV:
In using these two quotes (Pius IX and Vat.II), the author implies by using these quotes that this DEFINED DOGMA of EENS and the Canons on Baptism from Trent need further explanation: *as if definitions were not clear enough;
*as if its meaning goes beyond words of the dogmatic definition itself. See #2 of "Section I" above.
In other words, he presumes that once a dogma has been defined that the Church still needs to expound upon its meaning. This is clearly erroneous and goes directly against what Vatican I defined concerning dogmas:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, de fide:
“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[link-Denzinger 1800]
The author of this article has a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the nature of dogmas and dogmatic definitions. This fundamental error of his affects the rest of this article. For the rest of his arguments depend on his erroneous notion of dogmas as being true.
<><>
-->
Hence, there is no need to go any further.
============
[Matt.1618]
What about the authority of Vatican II, which was the foundation for the recent Catechism. Was it merely pastoral? If that is so, does that mean that we can ignore its teachings on the issue of salvation? Do we only affirm what we believe to be in view of the past tradition, and use our own interpetations of past papal and magisterial documents?
===================
Section V:
Again, with these questions he presumes that there is a meaning, an interpretation of this dogma beyond that which the Church has used to declare and define it. His entire presentation is based on this fundamental error in direct contradiction to both Vatican I and Pope St. Pius X..
=============
We must first examine some statements of Vatican I, which taught of papal infallibility, but also papal authority. Did Vatican I give us the freedom to dissent from papal teaching on doctrine, if we interpret the current pope as departing from the truth on doctrine? This is after all, the claim of Feeneyites. Vatican 1 in session 3, chapter 3 says:
8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
In Session 4, chapter 3, Vatican I says
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Further down this same session says:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
=============================
Section VI:
None of us who hold to the exact and literal meaning of the dogmas on salvation and Baptism are denying the above, nor acting in opposition to it. So far, these quotes have no direct bearing on the matter at hand. A papal "sentence" (#8 above) is a binding Papal judgment on a matter. This is completely different from the encyclicals, constitutions, catechisms, etc., of the last four popes.
============
Before we even get to Vatican II, we see that Vatican I, which the Feeneyites hold as absolutely true, as destroying the ground that Feeneyites work from. Those items which are to believed are not only those ones that are defined excathedra. We must also believe and hold those items that are of the ordinary magisterium. One is bound to submit to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals.
The teaching on salvation is of the level of the ordinary magisterium, as we will see, and one must submit to that teaching. The judgments of the Pontiffs are to be submitted to, and one can not appeal to ecumenical councils instead. The context is about appealing to a current ecumenical council over the current pope. Nevertheless, this implicitly condemns also the Feeneyite attempt to appeal to their own interpretation of past ecumenical councils (i.e. Florence,) over the judgments of the pope.
===================
Section VII:
Smoke screen! Smoke screen! This is a complete MISrepresentation of the Feeneyite position. Which is nothing other than the traditional teaching of the Church. The real issue is whether NON-infallible teachings are to be understood in light of, and thus subject to, infallible teachings. This is the REAL issue which he completely ignores. He puts up this smoke screen by confusing the issue and thus confusing his readers. Mat.1618 has no real Magisterial ground upon which to stand.There is also a difference between the "Ordinary Magesterium" and the UNIVERSAL Ordinary Magestrium. Vatican I referred to the Universal Ordinary Magesterium:
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
- which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
- and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
- whether by her solemn judgment
- or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.(Vatican I)
==============
Another test of the issue is whether the teaching of Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, which laid the groundwork for the teaching of the Catechism, is part of the ordinary magisterium. If it is, then all Catholics MUST submit to the doctrinal teaching on salvation, precisely according to the definition of Vatican I.
First, it must be admitted that there are some parts of Vatican II that are purely disciplinary in nature, and admitted to be so (i.e. Constitution on Liturgy and the Decree on the Media for Communication, said (Osservatore Romano Nov.30,1963.p.3): "The schemas which are to be voted and promulgated the next Dec.4 are of a solely disciplinary nature." Nevertheless, the doctrinal value of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium is spelled out here:
(6)Doctrinal Commission on Lumen Gentium: Nov 16.1964. The Commission was asked about the doctrinal note of LG. It referred the questioner back to its own declaration of March 6,1964: "Considering the Conciliar custom and the pastoral goal of this Council, this Holy Synod defines that only those things about matters of faith and morals are to be held by the Church which it will have declared clearly as such. As to other things which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the manner of speaking, according to the norms of theological interpretation."
===========================
Section VIII:
Ah, but no where did Vat.II "declare clearly as such" on a matter of faith and morals. It was more exposition and explanation, NOT declaration "clearly as such" (i.e., not declaration clearly as DECLARATION.) Luman Gentium states in its introduction:
"[the Church's] purpose is, for the benefit of the faithful and for the world, to set forth, as clearly as possible, and in the tradition laid down by earlier councils, her own nature and mission."
To simply "set forth' something is to simply provide an explanation. To "set forth" does not mean to define a dogma by "declaring clearly as such." To "set forth" for the "benefit of the faithful" clearly means that it is not definitive nor absolutely binding (as stated) on the faithful. The language is clearly NOT definitive nor binding as a de fide statement. Also, the "norms of theological interpretation" include the principle that non-infallible statements/documents MUST be read and understood (i.e. interpreted) in light of what has been previously infallibly defined. Otherwise the notions of both authority and infallibility are undermined and even turned upside-down. Hence, the author defeats himself in quoting this statement from the commission, for when Vatican II documents are read in the proper manner, as ambiguous many are, they still can be understood as supporting EENS and the necessity of Baptism in water for salvation - WHEN UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN INFALLIBLY DEFINED.
Therefore, this statement from the doctrinal commission cannot be used to support MATT 16's position. Rather, it can be used to defeat his erroneous opinion.
===============
[Matt1618]
(7)Paul VI, opening speech to Third Session (AAS 56,808-09), referring to coming work on the Constitution on the Church: "In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to PRONOUNCE A STATEMENT ON THEM THAT IS CERTAIN. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt [emphasis added]."
From the underlined words, it seems there was an intention to be definitive, and so, infallible, even without the solemn form of a definition.
======================
Section IX:
Is the author of this article honest? Can he not comprehend what he reads. Pope Paul VI did not say that the entire document "Luman Gentium" was a dogmatic pronouncement. Pope Paul VI was saying that a pronouncement would be proper for the concerns of "the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate" and "what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt." He said NOTHING else. In other words, it was only chapter 3 from LG to which Paul VI was referring.
However, Pope Paul VI was ONLY saying what was PROPER for the Council to do (future tense), he was not saying that the Council DID in fact make a binding dogmatic pronouncement. And, as is known, the Council did NOT make such a binding dogmatic pronouncement.
Pope Paul VI's opening speech had nothing to do with the authority or binding nature not only of the Council in general, it also had nothing to say concerning the document LG itself; only "what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt."
Therefore, this quote cannot be used in support of MATT1618 position.
===================================
[Matt1618]
Later statements: (1)Paul VI: General audience of Jan 12,1966: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided us teaching with THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, which must be accepted with docility...."
======================
Section X:
Ah, but something only qualifies, properly speaking, as an act/statement of the Ordinary Magisterium if it repeats what the Church has always taught and, AS VATICAN II ITSELF TEACHES, ALL THE BISHOPS in union with the Roman Pontiff MUST BE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTICULAR TEACHING (on faith or morals) IS TO BE HELD DEFINITIVELY AND ABSOLUTELY AND MAKES IT CLEAR AS SUCH (cf.LG #25):"...still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." (LG25)
But the Council Fathers did NOT make it “clear as such" for any teaching/document from the Council that what was taught was "to be held definitively and absolutely" as per the Council's own requirement.
Bingo!! By LG's own statement, MATT 16's support for the CCC and Vatican II statements in their entirety as representative of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium falls to pieces and has no Magisterial ground to stand upon. He is defeated by the very documents he wishes to use to support his position.
Besides, Pope John Paul II stated that Vatican II documents must be understood with reference to what has been infallibly defined before them. In other words, they must be seen in light of, and thus in submission to, Sacred Tradition. Pope John Paul II made this clear when he stated:
"Wherefore, the assent to be given to these documents of the Council, seen in light of Tradition and embodying the dogmatic formulae issued over a century ago by the First Vatican Council, will be to us pastors and to the faithful a decisive indication and a rousing stimulus, so that we may walk in the paths of life and of history." (First Speech to Cardinals, October 17, 1978)
Again, Matt.1618, has no Magisterial ground to stand on.
===========
[Matt1618]
We thus see that Vatican II is proclaiming the doctrine in Lumen Gentium to be binding on all believers. It is on the level of the ordinary magisterium as proclaimed by the Pope.
=======================
Section XI:
Sorry Matt.1618, due to the fact just presented above, you have just been proven wrong -again.
There is also one more point which destroys Mat.1618's support for his position that Vatican II, or at least Lumen Gentium, is "dogmatically binding on all believers."
In his opening speech, Pope John XXIII had specifically forbidden the Council Fathers from issuing any condemnations. Vatican II was to be a "positive" council. Hence, no canons, no anathemas. However, an essential part of any law, of any BINDING document/statement, is a censure against those who disobey or disregard it. But no condemnations means no censures, which in turns means it is non-binding (or no law). In other words, a document cannot be binding upon someone if no penalty is decreed by the authority which issued it. And we all know that there were no decrees of this kind were promulgated at Vatican II.
Mat.1618, once again, has no Magisterial "leg' to stand upon.
==========
[Matt1618]
Again, Vatican I had said "all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL magisterium". Those who stray from the doctrinal authority of this DOGMATIC constitution are thus at variance ith the church.
========================
Section XII:
Again, due to what was demonstrated in "Section X" above and due to his fundamental error upon which his entire argumentation rests (i.e. that, contrary to Vatican I and pope St. Pius X, dogmatic definitions need interpretation above and beyond what the words employed declare), this last sentence is false and without basis. ==========
[Matt1618]
Does Pope John Paul II downplay the doctrinal authority of the Catechism that he issued? On the contrary, he writes: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to BE A SURE NORM FOR TEACHING THE FAITH and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!" Signed, John Paul II We see just at this level, then, before we even get to the specifics of the issue, the Feeneyites as departing from the authority of the church, while claiming themselves to hold to the truth.
==========================
Section XIII:
Again, due to what has been demonstrated above, Mat.1618's conclusion has no ground. However, a few more points must be made. As to the doctrinal authority of the New Catechism: Let us examine carefully what the holy Father states.
Did you notice the nature and structure of the Holy Father's first statement? Read it again. The Holy Father says the CCC is attested to by three sources: Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. Now, to be attested to by another source means, by definition, that that source is both DISTINCT AND SEPARATED from that to which it attests. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium itself are separate and distinct from the CCC. This can ONLY mean that the CCC itself is NOT a Magisterial document, since it is quite evident that it is neither Scripture or Tradition.
The Holy Father introduces the CCC with language which indicates that it is not infallible, nor absolutely binding:
a) "It CAN BE SAID that this catechism..." (p.4 top);
b) "the Successor of Peter WISHES to OFFER..." (p.5 bottom);
c) "I ASK... the Christian faithful to receive this catechism..." (p.5 bottom);
d)"The CCC, is OFFERED..."(p.5 bottom and p.6 top).
Any school boy knows that this is NOT binding language. And rightly so, for in the area of doctrine the Church would never bind us to that which is NOT infallible. And as mentioned in "Section I, The Church has never exercised her binding, let alone infallible, teaching authority by means of an "editorial committee" (p.3 bottom). Sorry, an "editorial committee is NOT the Magisterium of the Church.
So the proof of this point, that the CCC is not a binding Magisterial document of the Church is right here in the Pope's introduction of it. And thus, Mat.1618 dependence upon the CCC as being so provides ANOTHER factor which destroys the basis of his arguments.
[Editor update: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1994: "The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess" (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26, Ignatius Press)]
=================
[Matt1618]
Part 2.- CHURCH FATHERS
Some of those who follow Feeney believe that their interpretation must be believed because it is the one always believed everywhere by all.
However, even their own publication admits this: They list Church Fathers who disagree with their interpretation of these dogmas --- "Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Prosper of Auitaine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bede" [Bro. Robert Mary, M.I.C.M. Tert.; "Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation", p.78 & 135 - A "From the Rooftops" Publication]
In this section, there will not be so much commentary, but statements from the doctors and fathers of the church, to show that the current understanding of Extra Ecclesiam is not a novel doctrine to be ignored. For me, the citations are self explanatory, that the Feeneyite position is not historically valid, and their citations of these very church Fathers are highly selective. I must admit that these citations are indeed selective as well, but the point here is to establish the fact that the Feeneyite view is not the one held by most Church Fathers.
[He provides Fr. Most's web site here for further study.]
Following are some church Fathers who either teach in some way either Baptism of Blood, Desire, and/or a broader, spiritual sense of the church, in addition to the visible church. These are often the very Church Fathers that Feeneyites love to quote. Many of these same Fathers will at the same time affirm the doctrine No Salvation outside the church. This shows that their understanding of this doctrine can not be reconciled with the Feeneyite view. These Fathers are cited chronologically.
==========================
Section XIV:
Here is where MATT 1618 completely ignores (or disregards) the Catholic principle of authority and interpretation. Therefore, NOT ONE of these quotes can be used against what the Church has infallibly defined, nor for MATT.16's position, since the REAL issue is what the CHURCH (i.e. infallible Magisterium) teaches as necessary for attaining salvation. These quotes are ALL smoke screens (i.e. meant to divert us from real issue and to confuse).
Before we look at those quotes from Church Fathers and Doctors used by Mat.1618, I present the Catholic principle of authority and interpretation which was briefly mentioned in "Section VIII" of Part I.
---------------------- Section I summery:
It should be self-evident for Catholics that non-magisterial and/or non-infallible documents must be seen in light of and in subjection to infallible Magisterial documents of the Church. Therefore:
1) NON-definitive statements cannot DEFINE for us what definitive statements mean, othewise definitions are NOT definitions, and thus the very concept and practice becomes obsolete. Besides, the nature and intent of a dogmatic definition already accomplishes this for us.
2) Infallible definitions cannot even be interpreted or modified by NON-infallible statements. Otherwise, two problems, fatal to the nature of authority and infalliblility, would follow from this:
A) We would have a document NOT protected from error determining for us the meaning of a document which IS protected from error, which turns upside-down the entire notion of infallibility.
B) We would have a statement of higher authority made subject to a statement of lower authority. This would turn upside-down the entire notion of authority.
This principle means that the teachings of Church Fathers and Doctors must be seen in light of and subject to the infallible magisterial statements of the Church. This fact, this principle, has always been recognized:
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth." -Pope Pius XII (Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953)
"I hereby condemn as heretical the notion that when anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in St. Augustine, he may absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any Bull of the Pope." -Pope Alexander VIII (link--Denz. 1320)
So what we have being employed below by Matt.1618 is this: he is setting up NON-infallible and non-binding statements of the Fathers against the clear, infallible and binding definitions of the Church to which these Church Father's quotes MUST be submitted.
By the way, has anyone noticed that Matt.16 has YET to quote even ONE of the infallible definitions concerning the necessity of Church membership and water Baptism for salvation? What is he avoiding in failing to quote these documents? Is he afraid of their perspicuity?
Let us now quote some of them:
At the Council of Florence, In the Bull "Cantata Domino" (1441), Pope Eugene IV infallibly defined for all time:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mat.25:41), unless before the close of there lives they shall have enter- ed into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church... moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#4
It was infallibly declared at Trent in it's Canons on Baptism that:
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. " (Canon 5)
"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn.3:5): let him be anathema." (Canon 2-- link)
Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that the Church "understands her dogmas by the words she has once declared;" and that "there must NEVER be recession from THAT MEANING under the specious name of a deeper understanding." (Dei Filius, ch.3) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn.3:5): let him be anathema." (Canon 2-- link)
Hence, THAT MEANING of a dogma is that "which Holy Mother Church has once declared." The Church has solemnly condemnd the notions that dogmas are simply interpretations and that they can have a meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula (see Lamentabili, #22,26,54 and Pascendi: DNZ 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907)
Hence, it is the WORDS as they are declared which are binding on us. The words of each and every dogmatic definition are sufficient and clear for us on this and EVERY dogma which they define. This is the very purpose for definitions.
The following lines from the above definition of Pope Eugene IV are stated without exception, and this is how we MUST understand and believe them:
A) "none of those who are not within the Catholic Church... can ever be partakers of eternal life..."
B) "no one,... not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
In light of what was defined at Vatican I, and also in light of the condemnations of the Modernist hermeneutic by Pope St. Pius X , we must hold and believe this dogma (as with all dogmas) precisely as it is defined. Therefore, "no one" means NO ONE. Period! If one is "not within the Catholic Church," they cannot be saved. Period! These are the precise words declared by the Church.
Pope Eugene IV's infallible definition says NO ONE who is outside the Catholic Church can be saved. AND no one is IN the Church who has not at least received water baptism. This was dogmatically declared at both the Council of Florence (DNZ 696) and at Trent (DNZ 895). At Trent (Session 14, ch.2) it was declared that the "Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered it through the gateway of baptism..." and that "by the laver of baptism where we are made members of Christ's own body." (Denz.895) This is why, in Mystici Corporis (1943), Pope Pius XII could declare that "only those are to be included as REAL members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults" (Denz. 2286 [3802]).
Canons 2 and 5 (as are all of the canons) "On Baptism" from Trent are AS DECLARED unchangeable and binding on all without exception for all time and are to be held and believed and professed precisely as they are stated.
Let me put it into a simple and irrefutable syllogism.
Infallible Major Premise (declared by Church at Florence and Trent):
No Baptism in water = no Church membership
Infallible Minor Premise (declared by Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Eugene IV )
No Church membership = no salvation
Therefore, Infallible conclusion (declared by Church at Trent)
No Baptism in water = no salvation.
All of the following quotes MUST be placed in submission to these infallible dogmatic definitions of the Church.
=============
[Matt.1618]
St. Ambrose. When he talked of Emperor of Valentine II, who died without Baptism . "Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this DESIRE; and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the GRACE WHICH HE DESIRED? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? CERTAINLY, Because sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: "Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest (Wis. 4:7)? (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian, 51. AD 392)
=====================
Section II:
This quote does not necessarily support the belief of BOD (baptism of desire), and it may even be used to support the necessity of water Baptism without exception. How?
*First: Read the quote again closely. Does not St. Ambrose say that the Emperor obtained that which he desired? Yes, he does. What did the Emperor desire? He desired the Sacrament of Baptism. St. Ambrose asks, "Did he not obtain what he asked for?[Baptism] Certainly he did because he asked for it."
St. Ambrose was confirming to the congregation that Valentinian did successfully receive the Sacrament of Baptism because that is what he desired and ask for.
This has to be, why?
Well, think about it. Did the Emperor ask for the desire for Baptism or for Baptism itself?
Surely the Emperor wasn't merely desiring the desire for Baptism. That would be ridiculous. No, he desired the Sacrament of Baptism itself. The statement by St. Ambrose can only make sense by the fact that Valentinian did receive water Baptism. Therefore, this example from St. Ambrose works against those who use it in support of BOD.
*Second: let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that St. Ambrose was really teaching BOD as sufficient for salvation here.
A) This still does not prove that BOD (as sufficient for salvation) is a dogma of Faith or even the constant teaching of the Church, because there are no Magisterial documents which put forth that salvation can be attained by anyone without having received water Baptism.
The works of St. Ambrose, and all Fathers, are still subject to what the Magisterium has infallibly declared as pointed out above. And at Trent, in canons 2; 5 (On Baptism), the Extraordinary Magisterium has declared in unqualified language which allows for no exceptions that: "Baptism in true and natural water is necessary for salvation;" and She infallible condemns those who hold that it could be optional.
B) This would also mean that this Church Father contradicted his own formal teaching on the matter where elsewhere St. Ambrose taught that "no one is excepted" from water Baptism for entrance into heaven. He taught that:
"no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven EXCEPT through the Sacrament of Baptism... `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' (Jn.3:5). NO ONE is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity." (On Abraham, II, 11:79,84;Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324)
Now, IF St. Ambrose was truly teaching BOD in his funeral oration for Valentinian, THEN this means that Matt.16 uses as a source to represent Church tradition/teaching someone who contradicts himself on the specific topic at hand. Needless to say, this is not very trustworthy. The Church NEVER contradicts herself. However, fallible churchMEN do.
===============
[Matt.1618]
St. Augustine, 1.13.3: (426-27 AD): "This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian."
===========
Section III:
Smoke screen! Smoke screen! This quote deals with the Old Dispensation (Old Covenant), and its requirements were different. It has nothing to do with the "baptism of desire vs. water Baptism/Church membership for salvation debate. The topic is, as Trent declared, SINCE the promulgation of the Gospel ("On Justification," chap.4: Dnz 796). As of that time forward, no man can enter heaven without water Baptism and being within the Catholic Church.
Therefore, Matt.16 uses this quote, as with numerous other quotes, to confuse the issue and mislead his readers (again!).
===========
[Matt1618]
St. Augustine - Those who, though THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, DIE FOR THE CONFESSION CHRIST, - IT AVAILS THEM JUST AS MUCH FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS AS IF THEY HAD BEEN WASHED IN THE SACRED FONT OF BAPTISM. For He that said: 'If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven/" MADE AN EXCEPTION for them in that other statement in WHICH HE SAYS NO LESS GENERALLY: "Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven.'(Matt. 10:32) City of God, 13:7
St. Augustine - That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although NOT BAPTIZED, it was said: "Today you shall be with me in paradise (11).
"Considering this over and over again, I find that not only SUFFERING FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST CAN SUPPLY FOR THAT WHICH IS LACKING BY WAY OF BAPTISM, but EVEN FAITH AND CONVERSION OF HEART, if perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism. (On Baptism 4:22, 29)
St. Augustine - "I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44-48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13-19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21[28]).
St. Augustine - "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" (ibid., 5:28[39]).
============================
Section IV:
There are three points which must be made concerning St. Augustine here: The first destroys the BOD position by exposing the fallacy of using the fallible opinions of certain Church Fathers and Doctors on a matter which has been subsequently defined since their life-times. The second and third points demonstrate how using St. Augustine in this matter is both weak and even self-defeating. Point 1) IF these Church Fathers (and St. Thomas Aquinas, below) really taught that BOD can suffice for that attainment of Heaven, THEN in light of infallible Magisterial pronouncements on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation, it means they were simply mistaken.
None of their writings are protected from error. Their writings are not infallible documents of the Church binding on all Catholics, and the topic is whether or not THE CHURCH teaches the sufficiency of BOD for salvation, not simply Churchmen. These writings are subject to what the Church has infallibly defined as dogma.
And the Church has infallibly defined as a dogma of Faith that outside the Catholic Church no one can be saved and no one is within the Church until they hold the Catholic Faith and are baptized in water.
Here are the sources again:
*Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (Lateran IV:[DNZ.430]; Boniface VIII: Dnz.468-69; Florance: Dnz.714; Pius IX:Dnz.1716-17)
*Baptism makes one a member of the Church (Florence: Dnz.696; Trent: Dnz.895);
*Anyone NOT Baptized is NOT a member (Trent: Dnz. 895);
*Baptism is in water only (Vienne: Dnz.482; Trent: Dnz.858);
*Baptism is necessary for salvation (Pope Benedict XIV: DNZ 1470) for adults and for children (Vienne:Dnz.482), without option (Trent: Dnz.861);
Point 2) St. Augustine's example in On Baptism Against the Donatists (4, 22), used by the Matt.16, is not at all relevant to this debate since the example of the good thief, used here by St. Augustine, was under the old dispensation. The present topic of the absolute necessity of water Baptism without exception, and thus the insufficiency of the BOD for salvation, is from the promulgation of the Gospel by the Church which began on Pentecost.
Hence the necessity and obligation under the new and final dispensation. In fact, later on, in his work "Retractions" (2, 44), St. Augustine recognizes his error in and regrets having used the good thief as an example.
Thus, in this example by Mat.16, his own source regrets using the very example he used which the BOD advocates say support their position. This is either poor scholarship or dishonest.
Point 3) St. Augustine contradicts himself elsewhere.
In using St. Augustine, Matt.16 presents us with another self-defeating example, for elsewhere the "Doctor of Grace" affirms the exact opposite: that without Baptism, which is in water only, no one can be saved. He says:
"The Lord has determined that the Kingdom of Heaven should be conferred ONLY on baptized persons. If eternal life can accrue only to those who have been baptized, it follows, of course, that they who die unbaptized incur everlasting death" (de Anima, IV, 11); "What is the Baptism of Christ? `The washing with water, in the word.' Take away the water and it is not Baptism." (Hom. On John, 15,4).
St. Augustine also says this:
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death beds! And how many sincere catechumen die UNbaptized, AND ARE THUS LOST FOREVER!... for what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? (Sermon 26.6 and On John 13, no.7)
Which is the stronger representation, a source (used by Mat..16) where he later regrets and retracts something, or a source where he does not do such a thing? Obviously, to use a source in which a contradiction is present cannot be a valid example for presenting this source as representing the Church's official, unchanging and binding teaching. Matt.16 again defeats himself with his own example.
=============
[Matt.1618]
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Summa Theologica
Third Part, Question 68, Article 2
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ays. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
=======================
Section V:
Well, Matt.16 uses another source who contradicts himself on this very same topic. St. thomas taught elsewhere:
"We believe the way of salvation to be open only to those who are baptized... Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation... Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without Baptism there is no salvation."
(Exposition on the Apostles Creed, Article 10) "A thing may be so necessary that, without it, the end cannot be attained... In this way the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to the individual, SIMPLY AND ABSOLUTELY."
(Summa Theologica, III, Ques.65, Art.4)
So, what do we have. Matt.16 using sources which contradict themselves to support his position that water Baptism is not necessary for salvation without exception. All of the above churchmen contradicted themselves in one way or another. This is why it is the teaching Church to which we must firstly and ultimately listen and believe.
The bottom-line fact is that the official teachers of the Church are its Popes and Councils, and NO Pope or Council has EVER taught infallibly and definitively that BOD will SAVE anybody. On the literal contrary, Popes and Councils have all taught, infallibly and definitively, that all men must be baptized with water, absolutely and actually, in order to get to Heaven. Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism" from Trent define this infallibly and allow for no exceptions. As St. Augustine declared:
"Rome hath spoken. The case is closed."
What does this mean for Fr. Leonard Feeney? It means that he was simply preaching Catholic dogma, without going beyond what the Church herself has infallibly defined. To go beyond and add exceptions to it is to go beyond what the Church teaches, and hence is an act of disobedience and arrogance.
=====================
[Matt.1618]
PART 3 - TRENT Trent - 7th 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. ========================
Section I:
Simply quoting this canon does not support Matt.16's position that Baptism in water is not necessary for salvation for some. This document, as in ALL infallible Magisterial statements, cannot contradict what the Church has infallibly defined concerning the necessity of water Baptism and church membership for salvation. In fact, this canon condemns exactly what Mat.16 is attempting to prove: that, for some, the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation. However, a number of points must be made here.
1. DESIRE OR VOW The word translated above as "desire" is the Latin word "votum" (n.voto). This is a misleading translation because the word "desire" has been used by many to mean that it could be implicit, and thus not a conscious explicit act. But this cannot be the case with the Latin word "votum." This word means a vow or resolve to obtain or receive something. By definition this is a conscious act of the will. To translate "votum" as desire is to provide a very poor, if not misleading translation. Why? Latin already has two other words which stand for desire: "cupio" (cupido) and "desiderium" (desidero). But the Fathers at Trent, protected by the Holy Spirit from error, infallibly chose the word "votum." This alone demonstrates that a conscious and thus stronger act of the will is what is being defined here.
2 THE CHURCH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION AND SALVATION
A. In quoting this infallible canon, Mat.1618 is working on the erroneous presumption that there is no distinction between justification and salvation. But there is, and the Church works upon just such a distinction. Read the canon again. According to both the logic and grammer of this statement the clause, "desire of them," refers ONLY to the condition of justification, not to salvation. By the demnads of both logic and grammer (and Catholic theology!), this clause of desire modifies ONLY the condition for attaining justification. It does not modify what is necessary for salvation. To pretend it does is to work directly against the very logic and grammer used by the Church in this statement. Hence, this clause concerning desire is concerned ONLY with, and is in reference to, justification alone, not salvation.
B. How can it be demonstrated that the Church works on the idea that justification and salvation are separate and distinct? I will quote three infallible Magisterial documents which work on the fact that there is a distinction between these two different realities. Let's read the quote of Canon 4 "On the Sacraments" again.
"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 for them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of JUSTIFICATION ... Let him be anathema."
Here, the Church works on the understanding that there is a distinction between justification and salvation. The point above from 2a demonstrates that this is the fact of the matter. Besides, there would be no need to make a separation in this single canon between the two if there was no distinction between justification and salvation. This is why the particular condition for salvation mentioned here (i.e. the necessity of the sacraments), is separate and distinct from the particular conditions (the sacraments themselves or the desire to receive them) mentioned in reference to justification.
Though a man, while needing to hold the Catholic Faith, can achieve the state of justification with the resolve (i.e., a conscious desire) to receive the sacraments (viz. Baptism or Penance), nevertheless, the above canon from Trent makes it clear that no one can be saved (i.e. enter Heaven) without their reception. This is one reson why the two distinct terms are used separately while each is assigned separate conditions.
There are actually two important distinctions here:
1) that justification (what we receive here and now) and salvation (the actual entrance into heaven after we die) are not one and the same reality, but are distinct and,
2) that the desire (or resolve) to receive the Sacrament of Baptism may suffice ONLY for justification. It does not suffice for salvation.
C: In the "Decree on Justification" (ch.4; DNZ. 796) the Church at Trent declared that, after specific conditions are met, the "voto" (vow or conscious desire) for Baptism can suffice for justification, and only justification is mentioned. No where has the Church ever decreed that this vow, or desire for Baptism can suffice for salvation -NOWHERE. Whereas elsewhere, in regards to salvation, the Church at Trent has decreed the necessity of water Baptism by condemning those who would deny its necessity in language which allows for no exceptions (Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism," DNZ 858, 861).
D: Vatican Council I infallibly declared:
"Since without faith it is impossible to please God, no one is JUSTIFIED without it, NOR will anyone attain ETERNAL LIFE (i.e. salvation) unless he perseveres to the end in it." (On Faith, chap.3: DNZ 1792)
These three infallible documents demonstrate that the Church has all along understood that justification and salvation are distinct and that the former is simply one of the pre-requisites for the attainment of the latter. Matt.16 fails to recognize the distinction which Mother Church herself makes between justification and salvation. As a result of this failure, his entire point for quoting Trent backfires and works against him. He has utterly failed and exposed himself as either ignorant or dishonest.
[editor: While Fr. Feeney, commendably, was trying to figure-out the distinctions to clarify what seems to be a contradiction in Trent as presented above. We at CFT do not subscribe to this theory-- ergo, we are not "Feeneyites". Because the Church has defined there is NO forgiveness of sins outside the Church:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…" also see the confusion on the word "AUT" [here] ]
===============
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 - In which words is given a brief description of the JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER, AS BEING A TRANSLATION FROM THAT STATE IN WHICH MAN IS BORN A CHILD OF THE FIRST ADAM, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except THROUGH THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR ITS DESIRE, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
===========================
Section II:
Again, the Church is defining the state of justification and how it can be attained. However, she is not defining HERE (i.e. the above quote) what is SUFFICIENT for the attainment of salvation. In regards to salvation, the Church at Trent has decreed the necessity of water Baptism by condemning those who would deny its necessity (leaving either water or Baptism as "optional") in language which allows for no exceptions (again, see Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism," DNZ 858, 861).
So, along with what is necessary (and sufficient) for justification, the Church has ALSO defined what is necessary for salvation. And this goes beyond what she has decreed as sufficient for justification. The following is a list of these necessary conditions:
*actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism (DNZ 858[Trent]), which is in water only (DNZ 482 [Vienne], 861[Trent).
*membership in the Catholic Church (DNZ 430[Lateran IV], 468-69[Unam Sanctum], 714Trent]), *reception of the sacraments (DNZ 847[Trent]),
*doing good works and obeying the commandments (DNZ 800, 804, 829-31[Trent]), and
*final perseverance (DNZ 183[Orange], 832[Trent]).
The Church would never have given SEPARATE dogmatic definitions on what is necessary to attain BOTH Justification and salvation if these were not distinct and separate realities. We must submit to what the Church has infallibly defined. And what She has defined as necessary for salvation goes beyond what she has defined as necessary (and sufficient) for justification.
Due to Matt.16's failure to take these important, nay critical, facts in mind, his entire goal and effect in quoting these documents falls. His interpretation of what HE thinks these documents teach has no actual Magisterial basis.
==========
[Matt.1618]
The Church is never in a hurry to baptize adults; she takes her time. This delay does not carry with it the same danger that we saw in the case of infants, for if any unforeseen accident should deprive adults of baptism, their intention to receive it and their repentance for past sins will avail them to grace and righteousness. ( , #36).
=======================
Section III:
This quote is not from the Council of Trent, but from the Catechism of Trent, sometimes called the Roman Catechism. This catechism, as all catechisms, is not a magisterial document. Hence it is not an infallible document. The work for a catechism was commissioned at Trent, but it was actually the work of a commission of theologians. And a commission of theologians is NOT the Magisterium of the Church. Besides, this quote does not say that these persons will be SAVED as such. It only states that, due to their faith and intention of receiving Baptism, it will "avail them to grace and righteousness." Are grace and righteousness to be equated with salvation, with the entrance into Heaven for the Beatific Vision? No!
The Church has defined for us the concepts and realities of both grace and righteousness -which is the same as justification (DNZ 799,800), and she has NEVER equated either with salvation. Here is one conclusive reason why "availing them to grace and righteousness" canNOT be the same as saying "they are saved:" The Church has infallibly defined AS DOGMA that both grace and righteousness can be lost before death (DNZ 808,833,837, 862), but salvation, BY DEFINITION, can never be lost, for it is eternal (DNZ 429, 530). Hence, they are not to be equated.
Interestingly, elsewhere this same Catechism explains: "Sins can be forgiven ONLY through the Sacraments when DULY ADMINISTERED." So it appears to contain a contradiction. Mat.16 once again uses a sources which contradicts itself.
(editior-- In this case CFT-Catholic Vox- can not agree that anyone could receive Sanctifying Grace after Pentecost without the Sacrament of Baptism. (see Trent translation here) while this may be a problem to be worked out further we agree with Adam that IF one could receive Sanctifying Grace before Baptism and God thought the one worthy, He would not let that one die without the sacrament of Baptism.)
=============
[Matt.1618]
TRENT TEXTS THAT SHOW ONE WHO IS JUSTIFIED IS IN A POSITION OF SALVATION
Trent, Session 7, Chapter 7 This disposition or preparation is followed by JUSTIFICATION itself, WHICH IS NOT ONLY A REMISSION OF SINS BUT ALSO THE SANCTIFICATION AND RENEWAL OF THE INWARD MAN through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an UNJUST MAN BECOMES JUST and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be AN HEIR ACCORDING TO HOPE OF LIFE EVERLASTING.
====================
Section IV:
This statement teaches no such thing as Matt.1618 wants to make his readers think it does. A justified man is, as the Church declared, "an heir according to the HOPE of life everlasting." Now, IF the state of justification is equivelent to salvation (life everlasting), or at least guarantees it, as Mat.1618 seems to think it says, THEN hope is NOT needed.
HOWEVER, one can only hope for:
A) that which one does not yet posses, and /or B) that which is NOT guaranteed.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that justification aquired by the "desire" for Baptism is NOT to be equated with the position of salvation.
The Church has decreed that the state of justification makes one an "heir according to the hope of life everlasting," and this can ONLY mean that the state of justification is not the same as the state of salvation. Otherwise, there would be absolutely NO need for hope and justification would NOT be "according to hope." Do you see?
2. Again, the argument above (erroneously) presumes that justification (righteousness) and equivelant to salvation. The Church has defined for us the concepts and realities of both grace and righteousness -which is the same as justification (DNZ 799,800), and she has NEVER equated either with salvation. The "Decree on Justification" is just THAT - a decree on justification, NOT salvation.
Again, Mat.16 COMPLETELY ignores Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism" from Trent which condemn anyone who holds that Baptism in water may be optional and is not necessary for salvation for all.
=========
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8...When the apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely that we are said to be JUSTIFIED by faith, because faith is THE BEGINNING OF ALL SALVATION, the foundation and root of all JUSTIFICATION, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of his sons; and we are therefore said to BE JUSTIFIED gratuitously, because none of those things that precede JUSTIFICATION, whether faith or works, merit the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION.
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5- It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through his quickening and helping grace to CONVERT THEMSELVES TO THEIR OWN JUSTIFICATION by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace;
======================
Section V:
Where does this teach that justification is equivalent to salvation? This quote is not even teaching that justification is the beginning of salvation. It says FAITH is the beginning of salvation, not justification. Please read these documents closely.
Again, Matt.16 simply presumes -without any demonstrative substantiation- that justification and salvation are INdistinguishable. Matt.16 is only reading HIS presupposed and fallible opinion INTO what the statement actually teaches in these statements. He simply quotes them but utterly fails in demonstrating HIS position. The reason he does not nor cannot, is because these statements do not teach what he thinks they teach.
===========
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5- Causes of Justification.... The cause of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and LIFE EVERLASTING; ... meritorious cause is... our Lord Jesus Christ... merited for us JUSTIFICATION by his most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father... INSTRUMENTAL is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever JUSTIFIED FINALLY.
=================
Section VI:
Matt.16 has attributed the wrong chapter to this quote. This quote is taken from chapter 7, On Justification, not chapter 5.
This chapter teaches that, along with the glory of God and of Christ, the final cause of justification is eternal life (or life everlasting). Of course: one cannot attain life everlasting if he did not first attain justification. However, simply because one is justified does not mean that they will be saved. AND, the Church has infallibly defined that without Baptism in water, no one CAN be saved. This statement from chapter 7 does not teach that justification is equivalent to salvation (life everlasting) -only this: that part of justification's final cause is eternal life. And it is a philosophical principle that an effect cannot be equal to its cause. Eternal Life (i.e. salvation) is a final CAUSE of justification, end of argument - but I will add more.
Notice Matt.16 doesn't name the actual document from Trent. He just keeps identifying the quotes from "Session 6." Why? Well, for one thing the name of the document is the "Decree On JUSTIFICATION." Thus, the Church makes it clear that she is teaching on justification, not salvation Elsewhere, when the Church decrees on salvation, she makes it clear that she is doing so, and those conditions in order to attain salvation (see Section II above) go beyond those needed to simply attain justification.
Poor Matt.1618, because of his failure (refusal?) to make the very distinction the Church works upon, he has nothing to offer by way of infallible Magisterial support for his position. He only exposes himself for what he is: a heretic.
==========
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14 Those who through sin have forfeited the received GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION, can again be JUSTIFIED when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the GRACE lost. For THIS MANNER OF JUSTIFICATION IS RESTORATION FOR THOSE FALLEN, which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. Continuing in Session 6, Chapter 14 is: For on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance when He said: _Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained_. Hence, it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a determination to avoid sins and a hatred of them, or _a contrite and humble heart_, but also the sacramental confession of those sins, AT LEAST IN DESIRE, to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Ghost and have not feared to _violate the temple of God_. Of which repentance it is written: Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works_; and again, _The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation_; and again, _Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance_ [Jn 20:22f.; Ps 50:19; Eph 4:30; 1 Cor 3:17; Rev 2:5, 2 Cor 7:10; Mt 3:2, 4:17; Lk 3:8]
=================
Section VII:
Mat.16 is being disingenuous in using this quote. Trent makes it explicitly clear here that this statement applies to a person who is already baptized! "On behalf of THOSE WHO AFTER BAPTISM fall into sin..." So the desire to make confession applies only to one who is baptized.
This is very misleading to his readers in using this chapter in support of his position.
Shame on Matt.1618
===========
[Matt.1618]
Vatican II comments specifically on this area in Trent (Session 6, Chapter 14): "Now just look at the wonder of that statement, a conviction consistent with the preceding 1,500 years of lived Tradition and with the subsequent 400 years of the same. There is good news in there for one and all. For example, not only may the Catholic find solace in the sacrament of Penance, but also in its desire. But the Protestant is covered as well, and the holy Jew, and even the holy pagan. You see, the catch phrase in all of this is "in desire" or "by the desire of the sacrament," both technical statements of hope for the invincibly ignorant, i.e., those who "desire" to be in the Catholic Church but are unaware that this want is the hope in Christ their soul is seeking after. Such was the lot of the holy pagan of the OT who would have entered into her communion if only she would have been in existence visible when he was alive. Such too is the lot of converts to the Catholic faith who were fortunate enough prior to their death to encounter the light of truth in its fullness (_Unitatis redintegratio_, n. 3).
======================
Section VIII:
Where on earth is this statement? It is NOT in any of the documents of Vatican II. My copy of Unitatis Redintegratio, no.3 says nothing of the kind.
But if it did, so what? Pope Paul VI stated:
"In view of of the Pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extra- ordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility..." (General Audience, January 12, 1966)
So none of Vat. II's documents are protect from teaching error, nor are they infallible in and of themselves -except where they repeat what has been infallibly taught from the past. Therefore, each and every document of Vatican II MUST be interpreted in light of and in subjection to what the Church has previously and infallibly defined. To fail to do so, is to turn upside down the nature of the Church's authority.
This is what Mat.1618, and those who argue as he does, is in fact doing -turning the Church's authority upside down. in other words, he is UNDERmining it.
End of Part 3.
Part 4 deals with Papal statements quoted by Mat.1618.
Critique of Matt1618, Part IV
----------------------- [Matt1618]
PART 4. MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND EARLY POPES
Pope Innocent II - To your inquiry we respond thus, we assert without hesitation on the authority of the Holy Father's Augustine and Ambrose, that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the church and the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly father land... Question concerning the dead, you should hold the opinion of the learned fathers, and in your church, you should join in prayers, you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. Denzinger
========================
Section I:
Preliminary point: Mat.16 misleads his readers by entitling this section as "Magisterial Pronouncements." After having read all of these quotes, it is clear that these are not pronouncements in the proper sense and usage of the word. A pronouncement is, by definition, a universal declaration by the Pope binding on all the faithful. None of these quotes, as you will see, are universal in nature.
Nevertheless, by starting this section off with this word, he sets up in his reader's minds the (erroneous) notion that each of these NON-infallible statements carries as much weight as the infallible statements of the extra-ordinary Magisteriam concerning salvation. This, of course, goes directly against the Catholic principle of authority and interpretation, which in short, it is this: non-magisterial or non-infallible documents must be seen in light of and in subjection to infallible Magisterial documents of the Church.
There are a number of points to be made here concerning this particular quote.
1. First of all, this is merely a letter from Pope Innocent II to an unnamed bishop of Cremona. It is, by nature, a PRIVATE correspondance. This should be self evident by the fact that no letter written simply to another individual can be UNIVERSALLY binding. Also, the matter of the letter is not dogmatic, but involves a prudential and disciplinary judgment. So it is not even a matter of faith or morals. Liberals have taken advantage of this letter ever since it was included in Denzinger.
2. Any educated Catholic should notice a problem, or at least become suspicous when reading this. The concerned subject was a PRIEST! It has been defined that NO MAN can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders validly if he was not FIRST baptized (Council of Nicea, Canon 19). So either this man was already baptized and there was confusion on this, OR he was not a priest, which means there was confusion about his identity. Either way, something is terribly wrong with this whole episode. Do you recognize this? Hence, what is stated cannot be binding since: a) no binding document could contain such confusion as this, b) it deals not with doctrine per se.
3. It depends entirely upon the witness of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine for its conclusion. Yet, as has been conclusively proven in this critique (Part III) that St. Ambrose did not teach that Valentinian was saved without receiving water Baptism. He infact confirmed that Valentinian did receive what he desired, which was the actual Sacrament of Baptism. (The reference to St. Augustine dealt with his comments on St. Ambrose's comments on Valentinian. Notice the circle?)
Besides, St. Augustine elsewhere recognized the Catholic position which is opposed to what Pope Innocent III recommends, even though Pope Innocent says he is speaking on the authority of Augustine! And that position was that it is forbidden to offer sacrifices for an unbaptized dead man:
"The Church never prays for those souls lost without Baptism... Mass is offered only for the members of the Mystical Body." (City of God, Bk. XXI, chap.24)
Pope Innocent II must have forgotten what was disallowed at the Council of Braga (563), which was approved by Pope John III:
"Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism."
4. Lastly, there is even the question of who actually wrote this letter. Numerous authorities (including document sources) ascribe it to Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), others to Pope Innocent II. Denzinger even brings up this point in its footnotes. But a gap of 55 years separate the two pontiffs! So, what do we have with this letter?
A PRIVATE LETTER, of UNCERTAIN DATE, UNCERTAIN AUTHORSHIP and UNCERTAIN DESTINATION, based upon a FALSE reading of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine having a recommendation which CONTRADICTS the teaching of a prior council approved by the pope of the time, all of which concerns an IMPOSSIBLE situation (an unbaptized priest) which directly contradicts innumerable indisputably valid, solemn and infallible documents.
I should not have to draw a conclusion for you concerning this example: not only is this NOT infallible, it does not even qualify as a document of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is merely a private letter from the Bishop of Rome to some bishop near the east.
=============
[Matt1618]
Pope St. Innocent III - A certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water, while saying I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.. We respond that since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when said "Go baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Jew must be baptized again by another. If however such a one had died immediately he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament although not because of the sacrament of faith. (Denzinger section 413)
=========================
Section II:
A number of facts need to be pointed out here also. a. This again, is a letter to another individual. And as pointed out above, no letter written simply to another individual can be universally binding.
b. It was THIS Pope, Innocent III, who prescribed the solemn Profession of Faith:
"By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside which we believe no one is saved." (DNZ 423)
c. It was at the Council of Lateran IV (1215) where THIS Pope solemnly and infallibly defined:
"One indeed is the Catholic Church of the faithful, outside of which no one AT ALL is saved..."
Ladies and gentlemen, in matters of Faith and Morals we are bound only to that which is infallible and universal. No one with a proper Catholic sense, with a proper Catholic understanding of authority, could even compare this private letter of Pope Innocent III to his solemn and infallible definitions, let alone use it AGAINST his infallible declarations.
No one is IN the Church if they have not at least received the Sacrament of Baptism, which is in water only as the Church has infallibly defined. Besides, Pope Innocent III himself made clear:
"In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely: the words [correct form: Mat.28:19] and the element [matter: water]... you ought not to doubt that they DO NOT have TRUE Baptism in which ONE of them is missing. (DNZ 412)
Which do we stand on: that which is private and fallible, or that which is infallible and universal? Obviously it is the latter. For Mat.1618, it appears to be the former.
==============
[Matt1618]
Pius IX, By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into, will perish in the flood. NEVERTHELESS equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty of this in the eyes of the Lord. (Denzinger, 1647)
========================
Section III:
Notice Ven. Pius IX restates the necessity of being in the Roman Church for salvation. He prefaces what follows with this dogma. Now ask yourself: do you REALLY think after reitering this necessity, that he would then go on to contradict what he just said in the previous sentence? Only an idiot or a dishonest person would do such a thing. Ven. Pius IX was neither. This quote does not say what Mat.1618 makes the reader to believe it says. It does not teach what those who work on a PRE-concluded assumption that non-Catholics can be saved think it teaches. Read the above quote again very carefully. Where does Venerable Pius IX say that these souls will be saved in THAT state where they are? NOWHERE! It ONLY says that these souls are "not guilty for THIS" (i.e. for not joining the Church). The word "this" refers to the specific sin of not joining the Church. Ven. Pope Pius IX does NOT teach that these souls are excused from having Original Sin -which, by definition, is mortal, or from any of their other sins.
We know Pope Pius IX was not teaching what Mat.1618 says he was because Pius IX himself solemnly and infallibly condemned the following:
"that good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of those who are not at all in the true Church" (Syllabus of Errors, #17).
Hence, there is NO hope for eternal salvation for those outside the Church (wherein there is no entrance without water Baptism). Mat.1618 is reading into this statement a position which goes well beyond and contrary to what it actually states.
This proves -conclusively- that Venerable pope Pius IX was not teaching what Mat.1618 and others are trying to dupe people into believing: -that one one can be saved without actual water Baptism, true faith and thus REAL entrance into the Church.
These liberals trick their readers by having them read these NON-infallible statements with the PRE-ESTABLISHED view that there can be exceptions to what has been infallibly defined, RATHER than reading these documents inlight of what has been previously defined. This is directly contrary to the Catholic principle of interpretation and authority which I presented in the aforementioned post above. And this leads me to our third point.
Thirdly, and fatal to this whole piece:
Mat.1618, again completely ignores (rejects?) in this article the fundamental Catholic priniple of authority and interpretation. God will lead these people to the true Faith, to the Church and to the waters of Baptism (i.e. to those things HE requires) if they respond to His grace. THAT is how we are to understand what Pius XI teaches IN LIGHT OF what the Church has already infallibly defined. It's really that simple. Mat.1618 wants to make it complicated.
================
[Matt1618]
Pius IX
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
POPE PIUS IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM, 1856.
4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children. There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God
7. The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, NOBODY CAN HOPE FOR LIFE OR SALVATION UNLESS HE IS EXCUSED THROUGH IGNORANCE BEYOND HIS CONTROL. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. Rather, it should act as an obedient and submissive servant, afraid of erring if it goes first and afraid of losing the light of interior virtue and the straight path of truth by following the consequences of exterior words.[18]
======================
Section IV:
First, it must be made clear that this was (is) not an infallible document. Therefore, it was NOT protected from error or even ambiguity since it was not definitive. And we must stand on what has been infallibly defined above ALL else. Now, Pope Pius IX either made a mistake in this fallible letter, OR he worded what he wanted to say poorly OR it is a poor and misleading translation. Take your pick. It does not matter. Why? Again, this letter was not infallible. It was simply a letter to the bishops of Austria. It was not even universal in nature (i.e. simply directed to local bishops). So their was NO protection from error being provided here by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, we MUST subject THIS document to what has been infallibly defined, and NOT the other way around which is what Mat.16 is misleading his readers into doing:
1. by failing to point out the proper Catholic principle of authority and interpretation, and
2. by using this fallible and local document against infallible defintions and canons.
========================================
[Matt1618] 8. We should not conclude that religion does not progress in the Church of Christ. There is great progress! But it is truly the progress of faith, which is not change. The intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge of everybody should grow and progress, like that of the whole Church of the ages. In this way we might understand more clearly what we used to believe obscurely; in this way posterity might have joy of understanding what used to be revered without understanding. In this way the precious stones of divine dogma might be worked, adapted exactly and wisely decorated, so that they increase in grace, splendor, and beauty--but always in the same fashion and doctrine, in the same meaning and judgment, so that we can speak of a new manner rather than new substance.[19]
Notice what Pius says. Back in section 4 he says outside the church, no salvation. However, he says that it specifically refers to those who have abandoned the church.
==================
Section V.
Pope Pius IX says NO SUCH THING and makes NO such qualification in section 4 of this document. Mat.1618 is deceiving the reader into thinking such. Pope Pius IX only says that, due to the fact that: "There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation"...THEREFORE, "there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood..."
This is not in any way whatsoever a qualification to what just preceeded it. It is a CONCLUSION. Shame on Mat.1618.
==========
[Matt1618]
Similarly, as in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, where he says those people who obstinately fight the pope have no hope of salvation. He writes in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore that one who is invincibly ignorant can achieve eternal life. Likewise, in this encyclical, in section 7 he writes "nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.". So therefore, those who are ignorant beyond their control CAN hope for salvation
=====================
Section VI:
Well of course the ignorant CAN hope for salvation. ALL MEN can hope for salvation, but ONLY those Baptized members of the Catholic Church who obey God's commands and persevere until the end will ACHIEVE salvation. And THAT is the topic at hand. So Mat.1618 changes the topic! How dishonest and misleading this man is. Besides, if someone is HOPING for salvation, then he can no longer be considered invincibly ignorant! He knows that he needs to be saved, which means he knows that God exists, that something is wrong, that there must be a means to achieve salvation (i.e. a way), that he can't provide it himself, and on and on. So Mat.16 defeats himself with his own conclusion.
===============
Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Question 132 - Will a person outside the Church be saved? It is a most serious loss to be outside the Church, because outside one does not have either the means which have been established or the secure guidance which has been set up for eternal salvation, which is the one thing truly necessary for man. A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.
Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Question 280 - If Baptism is necessary for all men, is no one saved without Baptism? - Without Baptism no one can be saved. However, when it is impossible to receive Baptism of water, the Baptism of blood suffices, that is, martyrdom suffered for Jesus Christ; and also the Baptism of desire suffices, which is the love of God by charity, desiring to make use of the means of salvation instituted by God.
=======================
Section VII:
Three points about this quote: 1.
*Nowhere has the Church infallibly taught that the desire for Baptism can suffice for salvation -NOWHERE!
*Nowhere has the Church infallibly taught that there can be exceptions for the necessity of holding the Catholic Faith for salvation -NOWEHERE.
*Nowhere has the Church infallibly taught that there can be exceptions for the necessity of water Baptism for salvation -NOWHERE.
While on the other hand, the Church HAS infallibly defined the necessity of the latter two and has condemned those who would hold that they are optional.
Also, the infallible ex cathedra defintion of Pope Eugene IV (Bull, "Cantate Domino") in 1441 precludes the possibility "baptism of blood" (of an unbaptized person) as sufficing for salvation. This infallible definition ends with this:
"...moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
2. The same points made about the CCC apply to this catechism also. No catechism is a Magisterial document. ALL catechisms are the work of theologians. And theologians are not the Magisterium. God help us if they were! Nor do theologians determine for us WHAT the Magisterium teaches. The Magisterium provides that for us in its OWN documents. Also, the concept of the "soul of the Church" is used in a false way here. Pope Pius XII gave us the orthodox way in which to understand this phrase in his encyclical "Mystici Corporis" where he makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church. There is also an implied misunderstanding of the nature of the Church. The Church is ONE and INDIVISIBLE in soul and body. Hence, one cannot be in her "soul" and NOT be in her "body" (i.e.membership which comes by water Baptism only)
3. This quote presumes that, for some, Baptism in water is impossible. But this is directly contrary to what the Church has infallibly defined.
The Church has solemnly defined as a dogma that God does not command and/or require anything which cannot be fulfilled. Here's the source: Council of Trent, "On Justification" (ch.11):
"God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, to pray for what you cannot do, and [He] assists you that you may be able... For God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them." AND "If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified..., impossible to observe; let him be anathema." (Canon 18).
Now, in exposing this presumption, not only is this catechism shown to be in error on this point, but the entire argument in support of "Baptism of Desire" (as being sufficient for salvation) falls. The "baptism" of desire position presumes that God has commanded and required that which is impossible for some. But this is contrary to defined dogma and has in fact been condemned. Therefore, God's command to be Baptized can never be "physically or morally impossible" for anyone, no matter what the circumstance -unless God is NOT ALL-MIGHTY.
=============
[Matt1618]
Pope Pius XII, (1943: DS 3821): "They who do not belong to the visible bond of the Catholic Church... [we ask them to] strive to take themselves from that state in which they cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation; for even though THEY ARE ORDERED TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER BY A CERTAIN DESIRE AND WISH of which they are not aware [implicit in the general wish to do what God wills], yet they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."
===================
Section VIII:
This is a mistranslation. This very quote and translation is dealt with in "Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation," (Saint Benedict Center, 1995) pp.152-156. In those pages it is conclusively proven that Pope Pius XII was not teaching what this mistranslation makes it appear to be teaching (i.e. allowing for exceptions to what has been infallibly defined.)
To buttress this point, this fact, Pius XII elsewhere in this encyclical makes it very clear that:
"only those are to be included as REAL members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults." (Denz. 2286)
=============
[Matt1618]
Vatican II, #16: (1964 AD) For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
=========================
Section IX:
Can any man attain salvation? Yes, of course! This is not the precise issue. Again, IF this NON-infallible statement is read and understood in light of and subject to what has been previously and infallibly defined, THEN we will understand it as teaching that God will lead these people to the true Faith, to the Church and to the waters of Baptism (i.e. to those things HE requires) if they respond to His grace. THAT is how we are to understand LG #16. ==============
[Matt1618]
Pope Paul VI - 1968 - THE CREDO OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD - 23 -We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.
======================
Section X:
Ah, but read what Pope Paul VI stated in his intro to this: that it was NOT definitive dogmatically (# 3). That's right, this is what he prefaced this profession with.
In light of what has been infallibly defined, I believe God kept Pope Paul VI from making this dogmatic and definitive because of the above somewhat misleading phrase. I say "somewhat misleading" because it is ambiguous in what it EXACTLY means, so it does not necessarily contradict what has been infallibly defined, NOR teach what Mat.1618 think it teaches. (Thank God for dogmatic defintions because here the Church IS telling us EXACTLY what it is She means.)
For both of these quotes (Vat.II and Paul VI's profession) the same applies: Yes, All men CAN obtain salvation as they say, of course. So, in light of what has been defined, this profession STILL could be interpreted as saying that God will somehow get the Faith to these certain individuals and provide for them the waters of Baptism IF they "seek God sincerely under the influence of His grace." Do you see it?
However, due to its ambiguity, liberals use it to fool and mislead the faithful (as well as potential converts).
=============
[Matt1618]
John Paul II, #10 (Dec. 7, 1990): "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the church... . 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 a part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."
=============
Section XI:
This is an excerpt from Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Redemtoris Missio" (Redeemer of Man: RM from here on) section # 10. This encyclical is not an infallible document. Therefore it is not absolutely binding on the consciences of Catholics.
Here's proof:
The Holy Father himself states its purpose in #2 (p.11 of the St. Paul edition): "The present document has as its goal an interior renewal of faith and Christian life."
The word "interior," by definition, means one's personal faith. One's personal faith is not that which is binding on all others -objectively. It is simply how one responds to and cooperates with the Holy Spirit. So he is not dealing with doctrinal/dogmatic Faith per se. The Holy Father's concern is with, as he says, praxis (life) and not dogma. Two paragraphs later the Holy Father then lists some other reasons for this document. All of them are motivational and pastoral in nature. By definition, this means that this is not a solemnly binding, let alone infallible, document. This should be clear to you.
On the other hand, #10 from RM is difficult to reconcile with infallible and definitive de fide teaching of the Church. Now, you will have to put your thinking cap on and follow this closely. Every sentence I see in #10, except for one part of one sentence, when seen in light of and subject to what has been infallibly defined can be reconciled to those dogmas which teach the necessity of holding the Catholic Faith, of Church membership and of receiving Holy Baptism for salvation without exception. That one sentence from #10 is this:
"For such people [i.e. those brought up in different religious traditions] 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 accomodated to their spiritual and material situation."
Now, dear reader, there ARE graces which do not on their own make one a member of the Church. These are those "preveniant" actual graces which lead one on the path to: recognize his errors and sins, to repent, to seek the true Faith, etc. The Church has defined these graces for us (see Councils of Orange: Dnz. 177,180; Trent: Dnz.797-98,811-813). But, these actual graces ALONE cannot and do not save anyone. These actual graces do not justify-sanctify, nor do they save. They simply LEAD us to recognize the truth and eventually, if we cooperate with them, to Holy Baptism and sanctifying grace. And if one cooperates with these graces he will find the true Faith. God promises such (see Mat.7:7ff; Jn.18:37). The problem is that the Holy Father appears to give the impression that this grace, "which does not make one formally a part of the Church," can save these people WHERE THEY ARE: outside of the Church and without water Baptism. But he doesn't actually say this. And WE KNOW the Church has infallible defined that these are necessary for salvation.
However, again remember, the Holy Father's purpose here is to motivate and give pastoral encouragement. So his language is not definitive, and therefore is open to improvement. It is no doubt ambiguous, at least in this section.
But this sentence does not NECESSARILY contradict what has been infallibly defined by allowing exceptions to those dogmatic definitions and canons. For the clause "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace" does not necessarily mean salvation can be finally achieved by this grace alone, nor where they are. "Accessible" is one of those ambiguous terms which can be understood either in a heretical sense or an orthodox sense. Notice the Holy Father actually never says they WILL be SAVED. Only that salvation is accessible. Well, OF COURSE! Salvation is accessible to ALL men precisely because of that "actual" grace which the Church calls "prevenient." If men cooperate with it, then this grace will lead them to those things which the Church has defined as necessary for salvation, for God's grace ALWAYS works in union with His revealed Truth -Christ always comes to men "in grace and truth" (John 1:14).
The Pope's language can be understood to mean this -ESPECIALLY when seen in light of and subject to what has been infallibly defined. He just writes in a very complicated way because he is more of a philosopher than a teacher. Mat.1618 again fails (refuses) to point out this ALL important principle of interpretation. He also fails to recognize that it does not NECESSARILY follow from what the holy Father states that there can be exceptions to the necessity of water Baptism and Church membership for salvation.
===============CONCLUSION====================
Does the reader now understand how, dispite the ambiguities of a number of these Papal statements (which is what happens when something is NON-definitive), none of these NECESSARILY provide for or teach that there can be exceptions to the defined necessities of holding the true Faith, of water Baptism and Church membership for salvation? This should be even more clear ESPECIALLY when understood in light of what has been previously and infallibly defined. (I know, I have said this a lot, but the point must be driven home.)
These statements appear to allow for such exceptions because liberas such as Mat.1618 have, BEFORE they provide these statements, impressed in the minds of their readers their false views (i.e., that exceptions exist to what has been defined because dogmatic definitions do not mean what they literally state) and THEN they provide their readers with these selected statements, thus making these statements APPEAR as supporting their heretical views; when in reality, they don't NECESSARILY do such. Crafty these liberals are!
Catholics stand on definitions; liberals stand on INdefinitions. I hope it is now clear to you how Mat.1618:
1. in practice rejects the Catholic principle of authority and interpretation
2. has mislead his readers by:
a. pitting non-magisterial documents against magisterial documents AND non-infallible documents against infallible documents;
b. even worse, by subjecting the infallible definitive documents to those which are fallible (i.e., not protected from error) and NON-definitive, thus turning upside down the benefits of both authority and infallibility, and
c. by preparing his readers with false notions before hand in order that they would approach and interpret all the non-infallible documents in ways contrary to what the words in infallible documents actually declare.
4. has been dishonest in HIS presentation by failing to quote the actual infallible definitions, decrees and canons on this very topic! (i.e., Vienne, Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Trent's Canons 2 and 5 On Baptism, etc.)
Dear Reader, think about how misleading this neglegence is: Would you take seriously, or as a reliable representation, the answer someone gives about the dogma of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception even though that person fails to even make reference to, let alone quote the infallible definition made by Ven. Pope Pius IX in his Bull, "Ineffabilis Deus"? Surely you wouldn't. No right reasoned and reasonABLE person would. Yet MAt.1618 is guilty of this very same negligence.
5. has presumed exceptions to those infallible definitions and canons which allow for no exceptions.
What dishonesty! What arrogance and deception it is to set up before his readers NON-infallible and non-definitive statements as the FINAL judge against those Church documents which have NO judge, but which ALL ELSE is to be judged by -the infallible and definitive dogmatic decrees, canons and definitions of the infallible Magisterium. Do you see? They turn completely upside down the nature of authority. Do you recognize this crafty/misleading technique now? This is what Mat.1618, Karl Keating, James Akin (and all at "Catholic" Answers), Peter Kreeft, Fr. William Most, Colin B. Donovan (and all at EWTN) and others have done. They are doing exactly what Pope Pius XII warned the faithful about:
"Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation..." ("Humani Generis": Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine Catholic Doctrine)
They are also doing what Pope St. Pius X warned the faithful about in "Pascendi Gregis" (1907):
"[Modernists] have put into operation their designs for the Church's undoing, NOT from without but FROM WITHIN. Hence the danger is present almost IN THE VERY VEINS AND HEART of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the fact that their knowledge of her is more inimate. Moreover, they lay the ax NOT to the branches and shoots, but TO THE VERY ROOT, that is, TO THE FAITH AND ITS DEEPEST FIBERS. Having once struck the root, the proceed to difuse poison THROUGH THE WHOLE TREE [i.e. the Church], so that THERE IS NO PART OF CATHOLIC TRUTH which they leave untouched."
Pope Paul IV stated in his general audience (8/12/1974):
"There are ferments of infidelity to the Holy Spirit existing both here and there in the Church today and, unfortunately, attempting to undermine her FROM WITHIN."
These quotes should make you stop in your tracks. They describe exactly what Mat.1618, and all these liberals, including many priests and bishops, are doing. They appear to be orthodox for this reason: By functioning within a climate (both socially and ecclesiastically) of such out-right explicit dissention, rebellion and rejection of Church teaching, their subtle underminings of these dogmas on what is necessary for salvation, where:
a. they "allow' for exceptions where none are provided for and
b. where they "allow" for meanings which go beyond the very words of what has been defined, are NOT noticed as unorthodox and against de fide teaching. The surrounding climate of liberal dissention provides a smoke screen for their "conservative" Modernist errors. Satan has provided the perfect cover for their errors.
In the decree approved by Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili (# 24), the Church solemnly condemned those who hold that a theologian is not to be corrected who:
"constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are doubted, even though they do not directly deny a dogma."
By definition, the BOD position does exactly this. Therefore, Mat.1618, and ALL those who hold it must repent from their error and believe the dogmas of no salvation outside the Church and the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation without exception precisely as the Church has infallibly declared and defined them. As Pope Pius IX infallibly declared:
"Wherefore, if ANY should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than has been DEFINED by Us, which God forbid, let them know and understand that THEY ARE CONDEMNED BY THEIR OWN JUDGMENT; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith."
==================================
[Mat.1618 writes]
PART 5 FEENEY, EXTRA ECCLESIAM On August 8, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued the Protocol , specifically condemning the doctrines of "the Cambridge group" as presented in From the Housetops, vol. 3. Feeney charged the Protocol was invalid, since it had not yet been published in the official register. The irony of this criticism is that according to John Cardinal Wright in a March 1976 article in L'OSSERVATORE Romano , His Holiness Pope Pius XII personally wished to supervise and, indeed, make the official English translation which would be sent to the Archbishop of Boston for promulgation in the battle zone." Wright admits being struck by Pius' concern for the matter: "I shall never forgethow painstaking, precise and scholarly was the Chief Shepherd of Christendom as he labored on a document to restore peace to a relatively small corner of the Christian World" (John Cardinal Wright, "Pope Pius XII: A Personal Reminiscence," L'OSSERVATORE Romano , English Edition, March 11, 1976, p. 3, quoted in Pepper, p. 34).
============================
Section I:
Two points need to be made: A. There is a deception here. The point Matt.1618 makes about Cardinal Wright's testimony stating that "Pope Pius XII personally wished to supervise and... make the official English translation..." has no basis in fact. Why not? There was NO Latin original for this document. It was not even published until 1952, which was a few days AFTER its author, Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, died! [editor: This is not true. The Cardinal died January 13th 1951 more than a year before the full publication in Sept. 1952, which still makes the same point. The man who is supposed to have writtenit can not be questioned about it— just trying to be accurate :-)
And this only in an American [diocesan] newspaper! (The September 6th, 1952 edition of "The Pilot". Then it appeared in the October issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review.) It was Fr. Karl Rahner himself who translated the published English version into Latin to make it appear official.
What a sham!
B. There is also fatal defect in Mat.1618's line of "reasoning" here:
Catholics do not base the authoritative character and weight, let alone authenticity, of a Church document upon the mere testimony of a man from a newspaper interview. A news paper interview?!! No matter what Cardinal Wright said, this does not change the actual facts of the matter, nor the (lack of) proper qualifications of the protocol letter.
The letter of August 8, 1949 signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No.122/49, was in fact formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (i.e., Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document -and even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop expressed in a letter to another bishop.
Fact out-weighs a mere newspaper interview.
============
[Mat.1618]
Eventually, after repeatedly refusing several summons to Rome, he was excommunicated for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority by the authority of the Holy See on February 13, 1953, the decree of which was subsequently published in the His followers maintain to this day that his excommunication was invalid, and, while a clever canonist might very well be able to make a claim that the case was at least poorly handled, there is little doubt that as far as Pope Pius XII was concerned, Leonard Feeney was, in fact, excommunicated.
=============================
Section II:
Rather than make comments, let the facts of the case speak to the truth of the matter: A. Fr. Feeney was summoned to Rome for a hearing by Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office (10/25/1952) without being told why.
B. Fr. Feeney responded (10/30/1952) by requesting a statement of the charges being made against him -as required by Canon Law (Canon 1715). The summons by Cardl. Pizzardo, in violation of this canon, failed to either state the reason for the summons nor give a formal statement of charges against the defendant.
C. According to Canon 1723, any proceeding based on citations as defective as the Cardinal's letter are subject to a complaint of nullity; and also renders a non-canonical summons null. The complaint of nullity is allowed under Canon 1680. A complaint of nullity was formally filed by Fr. Feeney, yet it was never responded to nor acknowledged.
D. Instead, (on 11/22/1952) Fr. Feeney was threatened by Cardl. Pizzardo with an imposition of a canonical penalty without stating the crime for which it is imposed. This is in violation of still another canon: Canon 2225; AND, Canon 1959 forbids penalties without a trial.
E. Fr. Feeney responded back (12/2/52) by asking what he was being charged with. Again, according to Canon 1715, this was not only Fr. Feeney's right, but was required for those who do the summonsing. Also, Canons 1842 and 1843 required that the defendant be informed both of the charges against him and the nature of the proceedings to which he had been summoned.
F. On 1/9/1953 Fr. Feeney was then threatened with automatic excommunication (ipso facto) if he failed to report to Rome by a certain date. This letter ignored Fr. Feeney's points concerning Canon Law requirements, for the offense alleged against Fr. Feeney -not obeying the summons to Rome- is a matter for a court or judge to weigh. He could not be excommunicated ipso facto because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such a sentence.
In the demands (and threats) from this member of the Roman Curia there were six (6) direct violations of Canon Law. It does not take a "clever canonist" to figure this case was "poorly handled." Both the appeals and canonical rights of Fr. Feeney were ignored and disregarded. Thus, this whole ordeal is not only suspect, but fallacious. Only pure bigotry could keep one from recognizing this.
II. "DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION"
On February 13, 1953 a letter of excommunication was released having NO STATEMENT AT ALL in it on doctrine, but had as its reason: "grave disobedience of Church Authority." Though this letter was registered into the Acta, it is formally defective and thus invalid for the following reasons:
A. The letter lacked the seal of the Holy Office and/or of the tribunal and was only signed by a notary. In fact, it bore no seal at all. The purpose of a seal is precisely to show the genuineness of a document and its contents, and is REQUIRED for validity.
B. The letter lacked the signature of the judge of the tribunal which issued it; where for validity the judgment of a court of record MUST have.
C. The decree was never properly communicated to the accused, which by law (and fairness!) it must. (It was first published here in America in the papers!) And most damaging to this document:
D. Fr. Feeney's summons to Rome was uncanonical, therefore the summons was null and the penalties resulting from it are void. 1) Canon 1723: "Renders a uncanonical summons null." 2) Canon 1959: "Forbids penalties without a trial."
E. There was never any canonical trial by a court concerning this case as proscribed by the disciplinary canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO CANON LAW, NO (VALID) PENALTIES COULD RESULT.
F. As allowed by Canon Law, Fr. Feeney sent a letter dated July 16, 1953 entering a "Complaint of Nullity" against the decree of excommunication to the Holy Father. It was never answered. Not only was Fr. Feeney not given a fair hearing, he was given NO HEARING AT ALL as required by Canon Law.
III. THE "RECONCILIATION"
In 1972 Fr. Feeney was "reconciled" to the Church. However, If Fr. Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, then he would have had to recant his position. Yet he was NEVER asked to do such. Anyone who is excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Fr. Feeney was NEVER ask to take back or repent from his teaching on "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation."
Therefore, Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn't be because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this. Rather, Fr. Leonard Feeney courageously upheld what the Church has always taught and he was unjustly treated and persecuted by fellow churchmen in positions of authority who abused the authority of the offices they held.
===========
[Mat1618]
In its letter to Archbishop Cushing on the Boston heresy case (the protocol to which Pope Pius XII had so carefully attended), the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office noted that "the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach. . . that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church." (T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.
For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church (in , 1952, vol. 127, pp. 308-15).
==================
Section III:
This is true, but (again) it erroneously presumes that there is or needs to be an interpretation of a dogma beyond the actual dogmatic definition itself. Also, Vatican I holds us bound to understand the Church's dogmas by the very words she has used to declare them -and NOTHING beyond. What the words declare IS the sense by which we are to understand them. Remember, Mat.1618 completely ignores (rejects?) what the Church has defined concerning the nature of dogmatic definitions and how we are to understand and believe them. Therefore, nothing he says stands. ==========
[Matt1618]
Just two decades later, the Second Vatican Council further clarified the position of the Magisterium: 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 (#16).
====================
Section IV:
In "Section IX" from Part IV of this Critique, it has already been demonstrated that, when seen in light of what the Church has previously infallibly defined on what is necessary for salvation, this passage from Vatican II does not teach that there are (or can be) exceptions to the necessity for Baptism in water and membership in the Church. ===========
[Matt1618]
It is interesting to note that the footnote for this very paragraph from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church refers to the protocol condemning the Boston heresy, which certainly lays to rest the popular claim among contemporary Feeneyites that the Protocol was simply a letter from one church bureaucrat to another with no particular force behind it.
==================
Section V:
This is of no consequence. Since Pope Paul VI stated that there were no "statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility..." (General Audience, January 12, 1966) at Vatican II, then we know that none of Vat. II's documents were necessarily protected from error, and thus are not infallible in and of themselves (except where they repeat what has been infallibly taught from the past). Therefore, it follows that a mere reference in a footnote to a fallible document bears no REAL Magisterial "force behind it" as Matt1618 would want his readers to think. ==================
[Mat.1618]
Here is the text of the letter:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston 8 August 1949: DS 3866-72
THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949
Protocol Number 122/49.
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 Church there is no salvation." 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, 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.
=====================
Section IV:
Axiom? AXIOM ??!! Dear Reader, did you see it? In two places this document calls the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation an axiom. Low and behold this letter, in stating that this DOGMA is an axiom, has already been solemnly condemned. That's right, dear Reader. It has already been condemned by Pope St. Pius X in "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" (September 8, 1907) and in "Lamentabili" (July 3, 1907: DNZ. 2022, 2026). St. Pius X condemned the notion which holds that dogmas are to be held as axioms, and not as "formulas which absolutely contain the truth" (DNZ. 2079). Why? Well, because axioms are seen as truths which are general in nature and not necessarily absolute. This means to understand and hold the dogma of no salvation as an axiom, one is NOT bound to hold absolutely to the words of the formula as they are declared (even though Vatican I demands this of the Faithful). This in turn allows one to go beyond what the words of the dogmatic formula actually state and thus allow for exceptions. This is nothing other than the Modernist hermeneutic (method of interpretation) solemnly condemned by Pope St. Pius X. Pope Pius XII subsequently condemned this same notion in "Humani Generis" (1950: DNZ. 2310-11).
The composer of this letter, and whoever holds to what it teaches, has been condemned, censured and excommunicated already per Pope St. Pius X's solemn and binding Motu Proprio decree, "Praestantia," on November 18, 1907. Pope St. Pius X declared:
"By Our Apostolic authority, We repeat and confirm not only that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation ["Lamentabili"], but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours ["Pascendi Dominici Gregis"], adding the penalty of excommunication against all who contradict them; and WE DECLARE AND DECREE this: if anyone, which God forbid, proceeds to defend any of the propositions, opinions and doctrines disproved in either document mentioned above, he is ipso facto afflicted by the censure imposed in the chapter "Docentes" of the Constitution of the Apostolic See: first among those excommunications "latae sententiae"... (DNZ. 2114)
Due to the above fact and circumstance, there is no need to go any further, for this is EXACTLY what Matt1618 is doing. Matt1618 is aligned with a document which, due to its notion concerning the dogma of no salvation outside the Church, has been condemned and censured. Matt1618 is thus excommunicated.
May Matt1618 recognize his error, repent of his error, repent of his slander towards the good Fr. Leonard Feeney (who courageously upheld simply what the Church has defined), and may he firmly believe and hold with divine and Catholic faith what Pope St. Leo the Great’s famous dogmatic letter to Flavian declared, originally written in 449, and later accepted by the Council of Chalcedon – the fourth general council of the Church – in 451. It is one of the most important documents in the history of the Church. This is the famous letter which, when read aloud at the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, caused all of the fathers of the council (more than 600) to rise to their feet and proclaim: “This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.” The very letter in itself embodies the term ex cathedra (speaking from the Chair of Peter), as proven by the reaction of the fathers at Chalcedon. This dogmatic letter of Pope Leo was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon in its definition of Faith, which was approved authoritatively by Pope Leo himself. The letter states :
Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81]
