Also note that infallibility was not defined dogmatically until the XX Oecumenical Council, I Vatican, in the 19th century. (not considering the debates over Conciliarism, which hardly count)
Come on, you can’t be Catholic! In my experience only protestants have demanded a list of dogmatic statements.
Have you not read the Gospel according to John? Jesus was baptizing through His disciples, and it was NOT the baptism of John. This is getting weird…
You and my wife are obviously from the same Church…
Hey, it’s your line of questioning! I accept everything the Church teaches as revealed truth. Why do you demand dogma? Is there some teaching you are trying to fudge on? Do you believe that everything outside of dogma is squishy and flexible?
As to your (unreasonable) demand for everything to be dogma, Fr. John Trigilio PhD, ThD, states that only twice in Church history has a Pope made an ex catherra statement. Is this all you will believe?
Further, I shall quote from Fr. Trigilio’s writing: “Ordenatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra papal statement, but it’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and thus, according to the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching is infallible”
I’m afraid you’ll just have to take that up with the Vatican if you disagree.
I find it difficult to believe that you are actually Catholic. Sorry.
I think an example of “extraordinary means of salvation” that nobody has mentioned yet would be a baptized sinner who makes an act of perfect contrition but is physically unable to confess his sins to a priest. He would be saved provided his contrition were perfect.
And, faith3faith, you are being really legalistic. The Catechism is an expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church which you are bound to accept, infallibility or no infallibility. Faith does not consist of the dissection of documents to see what bare minimum we can believe, like a lawyer dissecting the laws to see how much he can get away with. It consists of humble obedience to the Church.
Denying the extraordinary means of grace comes very close to if not being identical with the heresy of Feeneyism.
I see you have nothing to back up your position, so now you can only throw insults. How sad. :rolleyes: Also, protestants don’t demand dogmatic infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, because they reject the teachings of the Church. Instead, everyone knows that protestants only demand Bible verses.
It was not the Baptism of John ,…really!!! So you as a Catholic are claiming that Jesus commanded his Apostles and Disciples to Baptize in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins and for entrance into the Catholic Church by way of the New Covenant, even though Jesus had not yet gone through his death and resurrection and everyone was still under the Old Covenant??? Come on, you can’t be Catholic!
Matthew 28:19-20 contains what has come to be called the Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Jesus gave this command to the apostles after his resurrection, shortly before He ascended into heaven
I find it difficult to believe that you are actually Catholic. Sorry. :rolleyes:
Oh, now don’t play the victim here, as it is your assertions that are novel, unorthodox and misleading. The claim that Jesus baptized with John’s baptism is nonsensical. John’s baptism was of repentance alone. He prepared a people for the coming of Christ. John did not baptize with the Holy Spirit - he clearly foretold that only Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. I heartily suggest you read CCC 719-720.
By what authority do you declare that Jesus baptized with the baptism of John? Your answer is crucial to further discussion.
As to the normal Magisterium of the Catholic Church, can you casually dismiss the writing of an extremely well educated and respected Priest (with both PhD and ThD), whose book bears both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat? Please explain. Your credibility is on the line here.
You asked an extremely basic question about Catholic theology. On being given the correct answer, you claim the kind responder is wrong and reply with six hundred year old quotes. Suddenly I think you are not actually seeking knowledge, but rather looking for an argument. Why pose as a naive seeker when clearly your intent is to induce argument?
I was hoping that someone could provide some infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which teaches “extraordinary means” of salvation as a truth. Apparently there is no such teaching. If this is the case, then this seems to make the Feeneyite position of “no salvation outside the Church and its Sacraments thereof” even more credible. :hmmm:
So because you reject the authority of the official Church teaching on this topic, (and presumably reject the authority of the Magisterium that published this teaching), you turn next to a teaching that was actively condemned by the Church? That makes little sense to me. If your goal is simply to cast about for some teaching that matches your own belief, why bother to ask what the Church teaches?
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”,
Whether formally heretical or not Fr. Feeney was directed to stop teaching Feeneyism, and you seem to agree that Feeneyism is incompatible with the doctrinal teaching of the Church. But why are we really even having this conversation? You disagree with the Church’s teaching on EENS. I can deal with that, there are some aspects of Church teaching that trouble me, also (although not this). No one can “prove” to you something that you have already made up your mind about, particularly as you have already declared the Church’s official teaching to be wrong and lacking in authority. So, is there something in particular you want to discuss about EENS?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”