ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Acolythus sum]

Originally Posted by po18guy

I suspect that we are seeing someone here who has re-registered and is merely being provocative. They certainly seem well acquainted with this forum in only 46 posts...

I would have to agree.

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by Faith3Faith

Show me the infallible dogmatic teaching where Feeneyism was condemned by the Church,....You can't

Pope Benedict is on record as saying that Father Feeney's beliefs should not be considered by Catholics as having been heretical

Also, if Sacramental Water Baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, as you supposedly believe, then the Church would never have approved 3 Feeneyite communities by 3 different Popes ( Paul VI,JPII, B16)
OSB (men and priests)– Order of St. Benedict (Benedictines of Still River)
MICM (women)- Sisters of St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Saint Anne's House)
MICM (men)– Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Immaculate Heart of Mary School)

If Canon Law made it a doctrine then the well respected Canon Lawyer, Peter Vere, wouldn't have approved Feeney's community situation

Sacramental of Baptism is necessary because it gives the SACRAMENTAL Character which incorprates us into the Mystical Body, therefore making one a member of the Church. Without this character one is not a member of the Church

Pope Pius XII, MEDIATOR DEI--On the Sacred Liturgy, 1947:#43.
"In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream(meaning water) and consequently are not members of Christ."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and nor remission of sins",

?????????

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were excommunicated along with Fr. Feeney. Where are you getting this from?

And please note that nobody is disagreeing with any of your Papal quotations. The issue is not whether there is no salvation outside the Church (there isn't), but whether God in His infinite goodness can save a person deprived through no fault of his own of a physical ceremony. And the answer is of course He can.

Boniface's Unam Sanctam also defines that it is necessary for salvation that all men be subject to the Roman See - a statement which is true, de fide. But this doesn't change the fact that the Church has canonized saints of the Orthodox Church who were materially in schism from Rome - St. Sergius of Radonezh, St. Gregory Palamas, and St. Seraphim of Sarov being the most-beloved examples. St. Sergius was canonized by the Pope back in the 1700s, too far back for even a sedevacantist to reject it. God's Providence is wider than your legalism - a legalism which frankly is contrary to Christian charity. Our God is good and He loves mankind, as our Liturgy (the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) says - He does not blindly predestine everyone to Hell who does not happen to be externally and visibly a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Faith3Faith]

Originally Posted by TMC

you seem to agree that Feeneyism is incompatible with the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

Actually, Dogmatic Infallible Church teaching is in agreement with Feeneyism from what I gather so far.

Originally Posted by TMC

You disagree with the Church's teaching on EENS.

Actually I agree with the Church's dogmatic infallible teaching on EENS which is that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church"

Maybe you think protestants, jews, hindus, buddhists and Muslims can enter the Kingdom of God, but the already established dogmatic teaching of the Church would disagree with you from what I gather so far. Unless ofcourse you or someone else in this Forum can present infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church which teaches that jews, heretics and pagans can receive salvation

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by Faith3Faith

Actually, Dogmatic Infallible Church teaching is in agreement with Feeneyism from what I gather so far.



Actually I agree with the Church's dogmatic infallible teaching on EENS which is that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church"

Maybe you think protestants, jews, hindus, buddhists and Muslims can enter the Kingdom of God, but the already established dogmatic teaching of the Church would disagree with you from what I gather so far. Unless ofcourse you or someone else in this Forum can present infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church which teaches that jews, heretics and pagans can receive salvation

The Ordinary Magisterium teaches it, and that is good enough for us and for you. You have no right to reject the teaching of the Church just because it was not solemnly and formally defined - who do you think you are, anyway?

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Faith3Faith

Actually, Dogmatic Infallible Church teaching is in agreement with Feeneyism from what I gather so far.



Actually I agree with the Church's dogmatic infallible teaching on EENS which is that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church"

Maybe you think protestants, jews, hindus, buddhists and Muslims can enter the Kingdom of God, but the already established dogmatic teaching of the Church would disagree with you from what I gather so far. Unless ofcourse you or someone else in this Forum can present infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church which teaches that jews, heretics and pagans can receive salvation

This is where it becomes difficult for me to have a reasoned and civil conversation with you. You are free to disagree with the Church's teaching, most Catholics do at one point or another. But you are not free to misrepresent what the Church teaches. The Church's teaching on this issue is set forth in the Catechism. It is also set forth in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Faith. Both of those authoritative documents make it clear that, under certain circumstances, jews and other non-Christians can receive salvation. You can disagree with the Church's teaching in this area, and I am happy to discuss that. But it is simply wrong for you to misrepresent the Church's teaching, and I don't see how there can be a conversation that begins with you making knowning misrepresentations about what the Church teaches.

[Faith3Faith]

Originally Posted by Cecilianus

The Ordinary Magisterium teaches it, and that is good enough for us and for you. You have no right to reject the teaching of the Church just because it was not solemnly and formally defined - who do you think you are, anyway?

Obviously you don't realize that a Catholic is not bound to accept any teaching from the "ordinary magisterium" which does not conform to what the "Universal Magisterium" has always taught through Divine Apostolic Revelation.

i.e.- The Arian crisis, when 98% of the "ordinary magisterium" was trying to bind Catholics into believing the heretical teaching that claimed Jesus is not God........ Saint Athanasius didn't go along with what the "ordinary magisterium" of his time period was teaching. Instead, Saint Athanasius adhered to what the "Universal Magisterium" had always taught, which is how he knew that the "ordinary magisterium" was teaching heresy.

[Acolythus sum]

Originally Posted by Faith3Faith

Obviously you don't realize that a Catholic is not bound to accept any teaching from the "ordinary magisterium" which does not conform to what the "Universal Magisterium" has always taught through Divine Apostolic Revelation.

i.e.- The Arian crisis, when 98% of the "ordinary magisterium" was trying to bind Catholics into believing the heretical teaching that claimed Jesus is not God........ Saint Athanasius didn't go along with what the "ordinary magisterium" of his time period was teaching. Instead, Saint Athanasius adhered to what the "Universal Magisterium" had always taught, which is how he knew that the "ordinary magisterium" was teaching heresy.

Please provide infallible dogmatic quotations to support your argument.

[Faith3Faith]

Originally Posted by TMC

This is where it becomes difficult for me to have a reasoned and civil conversation with you. You are free to disagree with the Church's teaching, most Catholics do at one point or another. But you are not free to misrepresent what the Church teaches. The Church's teaching on this issue is set forth in the Catechism. It is also set forth in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Faith. Both of those authoritative documents make it clear that, under certain circumstances, jews and other non-Christians can receive salvation. You can disagree with the Church's teaching in this area, and I am happy to discuss that. But it is simply wrong for you to misrepresent the Church's teaching, and I don't see how there can be a conversation that begins with you making knowning misrepresentations about what the Church teaches.

Lets take a look at what Pope Benedict says about the Catechsim of the Church shall we......

"The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27]."

I obviously agree with the Pope and do not reject the Catechism as a whole. If I did reject the Catechism as a whole, then I would be separating myself from the faith since some parts contained in the Catchism are from infallible teachings. However, if one rejects only certian parts of the Catechism whose teachings are derived from fallible sources, then one is not rejecting the entire Catechism as a whole and thereby not separating themselves from the faith.

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."


Notice what the Pope said above ,.... "Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions"

Hence, one is to look to the already established dogmatic traditional teachings of the Church and the infallible documents thereof since the Pope himself admits that much of what is taught in the Catechism is not infallible.

[Acolythus sum]

Also of note:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for."

[Acolythus sum]

Originally Posted by Faith3Faith

Lets take a look at what Pope Benedict says about the Catechsim of the Church shall we......

"The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27]."

I obviously agree with the Pope and do not reject the Catechism as a whole. If I did reject the Catechism as a whole, then I would be separating myself from the faith since some parts contained in the Catchism are from infallible teachings. However, if one rejects only certian parts of the Catechism whose teachings are derived from fallible sources, then one is not rejecting the entire Catechism as a whole and thereby not separating themselves from the faith.

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."


Notice what the Pope said above ,.... "Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions"

Hence, one is to look to the already established dogmatic traditional teachings of the Church and the infallible documents thereof since the Pope himself admits that much of what is taught in the Catechism is not infallible.

I quoted the Catechism above:

"2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for."

It is hard to believe that our last two Popes have put themselves at odds over the Catechism (see my quote earlier from Pope John Paul II). Oh, and Pope Benedict XVI has not made any ex cathedra, infallible declarations. So, your quotes are invalid by your own standard. Perhaps you should find infallible, dogmatic quotes which support your argument, which seem to be your only criteria for determination. Also note (again) that infallibility was not even defined until Oecumenical Council XX in the 19th century, and it has only been exercised a handful of times (again, see above).

[Cecilianus]

Faith3Faith, here is an article that gives you your "infallible declarations" that you keep insisting on.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...ire.htm#_ftn15

Among others it quotes the Council of Trent:

The state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.

and also lists as condemned the following propositions:

No grace is given outside the Church

(condemned in 1713, Unigenitus, by Clement XII)

Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ

(condemned in 1690 by Alexander VIII)

You might as well ignore the statements by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Bonaventure, since they're not infallible enough for you.

[Cecilianus]

Here's more, from this link: http://www.traditionalmass.org/artic...ame=2#_ftnref3

A. Desire. St. Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session 14, on Penance, ch. 4.
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
The first citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” (Dz 388)[2]
Other theologians also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions. They also cite Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)[3]
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
B. Blood. St. Alphonsus defines baptism of blood as: “The shedding of blood, or death tolerated, for the faith or for another Christian virtue.” As sources, he cites, among others, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. (ibid.)
As Solà noted (see above), opposition to this doctrine was virtually non-existent. The Magisterium does not usually intervene to issue a solemn definition for a common teaching unless it is widely attacked by heretics.

[Faith3Faith]

Originally Posted by Acolythus sum

Also of note:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for."

Notice how it included the key words "Universal Magisterium". Therefore you can't accept any teaching in the Catechism alone, but only those teachings in the Catechism which adheres to what has already been handed down by the "Universal Magisterium". So therefore since "Water Baptism" has already been taught as a dogma through the "Universal Magisterium" as the only Sacrament by which initial remission of all sin occurs and the only door by which one enters the Church, then a Catholic would know to reject any teaching from the Catechism which contradicts this teaching., ..such as the teachings Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood

[Acolythus sum]

Originally Posted by Faith3Faith

Notice how it included the key words "Universal Magisterium". Therefore you can't accept any teaching in the Catechism alone, but only those teachings in the Catechism which adheres to what has already been handed down by the "Universal Magisterium". So therefore since "Water Baptism" has already been taught as a dogma through the "Universal Magisterium" as the only Sacrament by which initial remission of all sin occurs and the only door by which one enters the Church, then a Catholic would know to reject any teaching from the Catechism which contradicts this teaching., ..such as the teachings Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood

Read Cecilianus' links. They clearly show that all 3 kinds of baptism are considered valid, under certain circumstances.

Also, it is rather clear that the Catechism is an act of the universal magisterium. Also, I would like to see any (infallible dogmatic) quotes that clearly state water baptism is the only means to salvation. Perhaps all those canonized martyrs are actually burning eternally in hell?

[Acolythus sum]

Also, to hold that we know who is saved and who is not is limiting upon the power of our Omnipotent God, who has the power to save anyone he wishes, as is shown splendidly in Cecilianus' first article. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Your position is a severe judgment upon those who are, in your eyes, condemned.