When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[catholicguy]

Exactly. He neither recanted nor confessed anything other than Church teaching and what he had always taught (e.g., Athanasian Creed). I am not a member of SSPX. The SSPX's official stance denies [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [/i](at least this "interpretation" of it). I go to an FSSP Parish. I am going to FSSP Seminary once I finish my education requirements (I hope; it is already very backed up since so many men want to join).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read this article from head to toe and tell me what you think of it:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT[/url]

[XIX]

I think that is a little bit too much reading for a Friday!

But I did read it. I noticed that the broad views of salvation were voiced mostly in more recent years, while the narrow views were exclusively from the year 1302 on back. So another question arises: should we put more credence into the what the Church said first, or what it said most recently?

The article also makes a good point by pointing out the context in which the earlier, narrow views were voiced.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There were broad views of salvation voiced by the Early Church Fathers in that article too. Dating back to before 200 AD.

[catholicguy]

Obviously we should go with what is earlier, since what is later is not "defined" by the Church. If it was taught earlier (1302 and back, which is a completely incorrect date...Council of Florence was after 1302), that means it was taught by Christ, Who happened to live before 1302. In any event, the first is dogma, the second is speculative theology at best, heresy at worst. I didn't click that link, but I'm SURE it's Fr. Most. Anything he says constitutes Ex Cathedra around these parts. God bless.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 16 2004, 01:31 PM'] There were broad views of salvation voiced by the Early Church Fathers in that article too. Dating back to before 200 AD. [/quote]
Even if that is so, what did Christ Himself teach: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (St. John III. 5) He again stated: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (St. Mark XVI. 16) What more evidence do we need than the infallible declaration of the Church that what Our Lord stated is to be understood that "no man, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? What more evidence can be shown to make null and void the Word of God Incarnate Himself?

[cmotherofpirl]

Validly baptised christians are part of the Catholic Church, whether they know it or not.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Obviously we should go with what is earlier, since what is later is not "defined" by the Church. If it was taught earlier (1302 and back, which is a completely incorrect date...Council of Florence was after 1302), that means it was taught by Christ, Who happened to live before 1302.[/quote]
But saying that the Church of 1302 knew Christ and the current one does not would mean that the Church has lost its Apostolic authority. And this logic would disclude the Council of Trent and mean Martin Luther knew Christ better than John Paul II. Mary as Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptorix is not "defined" by the Church, but that doesn't mean we are allowed to disbelieve it. Infallibility wasn't defined until Vatican I, but that doesn't mean that the Pope wasn't infallible prior to 1870.

[quote]Even if that is so, what did Christ Himself teach: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (St. John III. 5) He again stated: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (St. Mark XVI. 16) What more evidence do we need than the infallible declaration of the Church that what Our Lord stated is to be understood that "no man, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? What more evidence can be shown to make null and void the Word of God Incarnate Himself?[/quote]
But he is obviously talking about those who have heard the Gospel. Feeneyism teaches that a person on an island unknown to the Christian world (and thus ignorant of the message of Jesus) will perish. The doctrine basically says that if God wanted them to be saved, he would tell them to build a boat and sail to the Vatican to be evangelized.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Catholicguy, your position is too precariously based to be a legitimately catholic one. In the one hand you support yourself by the infallible statements of particular councils, but in the other hand you deny the teaching and interpretive authority of the Church. You must understand that we as catholics are [i]not[/i] allowed to "just believe those things taught infallibly and personally interpret everything else." In fact, we have been explicitly told not to. Everything that the Magisterium teaches should be accepted by the laity with humble minds and hearts, and with faith in the teaching of the Church. Individual interpretations such as your own are only "allowed" insofar as they do not contradict ANY of the teachings of the church, "infallible" or otherwise.

Also, from a pure critique of apologetics, your argument is greatly hindered by the fact that you blindly disregard anything written by a particular person (like, for example, Fr. Most). We do not do the same with Fr. Feeney, although we have a much greater reason to do so.

All of your questions have been addressed. If you deem them, in your infinite wisdom, to be unacceptable, and so, with your authority, deem the teachings of the church as it regards baptism of blood and desire - and membership in the Body of Christ as a whole - as untenable, you stand in opposition to the Church and its interpretive authority, and, as a result, have no different a grounding than a Protestant in this particular matter.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff