Catholic Faction?

[dairygirl4u2c]

How do you all suppose the traditionalists came to reject the teachings of vatican II on allowing the possibility for salvation outside the Catholic Church for non Catholic Church's officially?

It seems they'd come to that because at one point, it was expressly said that no nons can be saved. And the ordinary magisterium taught this. If this is the case, papal infallibility is a sham, correct?.


Maybe there was an equal split in the Church on the issue, I dunno. But you can tell me how it came to be.

[Brother Adam]

You are trying to make something complicated that isn't. The Second Vatican Council did not add any new teaching. It was a pastoral council that clarified true teaching.

The teaching has always been that there is no salvation outside of the Church - the body of Christ. Any Protestant would agree. The Church, in it's fullness is realized in the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church which is a geographical rite of the Catholic Church.

Those who reject the teachings of the body of Christ seperate themselves from the body of Christ. However, many non-Catholics become and remain Christians through ignorance.

Your point is moot.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Ordinary Magisterium doesn't teach Feeneyism.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 31 2004, 03:22 PM'] You are trying to make something complicated that isn't. The Those who reject the teachings of the body of Christ seperate themselves from the body of Christ. However, many non-Catholics become and remain Christians through ignorance. [/quote]
I know I probably sound picky, but it's an important point. We cannot become Christian "through" ignorance, but "in spite of" ignorance. One cannot reject what what does not get offered. Every person born will be offered the opportunity to accept Salvific Grace. This Salvific Grace is made possible by the merits of Jesus' self sacrifice for all of us, past, present, and future. As the parable makes clear, the Master knows what was given (talents/grace) and what is in return demanded of them. The one servant knew the Master wanted a return on his investment, but instead, he risked nothing, did his own will, and returned the talent. All the others, despite the difference of what they were given, participated with the gift of the talents and returned more to the Master.

Christians are blessed with being given tons of Grace. We also have a greater obligation to do more because the Master has burdended us with more responsibility. A primitive native in the Amazon may never have the opportunity to have God and Jesus taught to them. But they are still graced with a conscience and the ability to know right from wrong and to choose. They may have only 1 talent compared to 10,000 a Christian may have. But God will judge accordingly. Ignorance does not save the primitive. In fact, it also points to our responsibility to share our talents/grace with these people by evangelizing in order to increase their opportunity to respond to grace. It is one of the burdens of bountiful grace give to Christians.

Jesus established His Church as The Primary Source of His Grace in our world. Jesus is the Creator of All and is not limited to His Church. We are limited to how He chooses to give us opportunities to accept Grace. We are damned by refusing to accept Grace or rejecting it, not by failure to have the opportunity to accept it.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=17829"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=17829[/url]

haven't we talked about this before, somewhere?

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X says baptism of blood and baptism of desire, the ECFs say baptism of blood and baptism of desire, St. Thomas Aquinas says baptism of blood and baptism of desire... this doctrine of invincible ignorance does not contradict previous magisterial teaching. they follow the teaching of a heretic who was yelled at for teaching heresy, Fr. Feeny. we continue to follow the Teaching of The Catholic Church which has not changed through Vatican II.

[dairygirl4u2c]

We've talked about it. I said it seemed like a technicality and a cop out that VII said all that.

But anway, the main reason I started this thread is for an answer, or a theory.

[quote]How do you all suppose the traditionalists came to reject the teachings of vatican II on allowing the possibility for salvation outside the Catholic Church for non?[/quote]

and it's not just traditionalists, I've even seen conservative still full fledged Roman Catholics.. i mean roman roman.. call salvation outside as possible, controversial.

I haven't seen many documents on what was believed in the days that caused the controversial "no salvation outside the Catholic Church". Nothing to say that many believe the invisisible ignorance stuff. But then nothing that said "no salavatoin" meant no salvation in the strict way it is often portratyed. So then nothing to reinforce what was taught either way in regards to the ignorant really. Not that it doesn't exist, the evidene just hasn't been presented yet.

Since I have no evidence, and especially since no one has at least attempted to answer my question, the point is not yet moot. Unless ya'll are sayin that Fr. Feeny caused all of that chaos? (I suppose I should look more into feeny to see what his basis was either way)

Edited August 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

they followed Fr. Feeny as well as a few other heretics who taught false doctrines, that is how they came to find themselves in schism teaching what they believe to be Catholic Doctrine but lacking the completeness of it that has always been taught.

If you want support for the idea that we have always believed invincible ignorance and explicit or implicit desire can cause one to be imperfectly united to the Catholic Church without their knowledge, I could give you quotes from the Early Church Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Pius XII, need I go on? It was always part of the Church's teaching, Vatican II elaborated.

[dairygirl4u2c]

No I mean documents from the popes or people around the popes that wrote the controversial "no salvation". Don't get us going in circles like me and phatcatholic did!

[Aloysius]

so you want a pope that taught Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus (Outside the Church there is no Salvation) to be shown to explicitly teach about implicit and explicit desire with invincible ignorance joining someone to the Church?

well, you could say Pope St. Pius X.... i don't know if you could find a Pope who taught Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus also specifically stating this. why? because the subject didn't come up. It came up and was adressed by the ECFs, it came up breifly and was adressed by the Council of Trent, it came up and was adressed by Pope St. Pius X in his Catechism, it came up and was adressed in Vatican II.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]so you want a pope that taught Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus (Outside the Church there is no Salvation) to be shown to explicitly teach about implicit and explicit desire with invincible ignorance joining someone to the Church?[/quote]

Yes, maybe not with the technical jargon, but yes. The ignorant and such should have been discussed since the ECFs taught it. (since they taught many things) To have such strong words and no mention of the ignorant seems to say they were against the ignorant's salvation.



I'm still looking into feenyism and into why the traditionalists and conservatives believe what they do. I doubt it's all because of feeny.

[Aloysius]

yeah, Feeny wasn't the only heretic that mislead people right out of the Church by makin em think it was where the real Church was.

you're inferring what was not intended to be implied, as if the ommission of a reference to the idea of invincible ignorance somehow is contrary to the pius belief that was widespread. i would contend that because it has always been a widespread pius belief, the ommission of a condemnation of that idea is more of an affirmation of it than an ommission of support of it would discredit it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]To have such strong words and no mention of the ignorant seems to say they were against the ignorant's salvation.[/quote]

What I meant was no mention of them as being an exception or whatever. But you are right that it could have been so spread that they were good to go that they didn't mention it. But I still don't think that theory is much.

WHich is why feeny and company and more research is warranted.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Please read every word dairygirl, I think you'll understand:
[url="http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thedude/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thed...tfeeneyism.html[/url]

EDIT: I wrote this myself, so if you don't read it, I'll be sad.

Edited September 1, 2004 by thedude

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks for the link thedude. I understand what you all have been saying which was said in your link.

That said, I think your link should have touched more on why Feeny thought what
he did and why it is wrong. You showed how you think the Catholic Church must be right, but I still find flaws with what is said in the link and on here. So again, cool link, but some more on why he thought what he did would be better.

[Aloysius]

why does any schismatic cause schism?

generally, pride. he placed too much pride in his own interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus that he couldn't accept that the Church disagreed with him.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I don't understand, what flaws? The link contains only minimal commentary in favor of (in-context) quotes. The documents are the Church's teachings, and the teaching isn't Feeneyism.
As for what Feeney thought, try a Feeneyite website. The theology center he founded opperates one and there are many Feeneyite followers who have websites. In fact, Feeneyite sites started me on a search for the true Church (which I found isn't Feeneyism). I know of a few, but I don't want to post them here. They aren't hard to find though.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 31 2004, 08:27 PM'] Thanks for the link thedude. I understand what you all have been saying which was said in your link.

That said, I think your link should have touched more on why Feeny thought what
he did and why it is wrong. You showed how you think the Catholic Church must be right, but I still find flaws with what is said in the link and on here. So again, cool link, but some more on why he thought what he did would be better. [/quote]
Pinpoint some things specifically and we'll take it from there....

why don't you post what he (Feeny) thought and we'll post why he's wrong....I'm sure phatcatholic wasn't leading when ya'll were going in "circles"......

+JMJ
God Bless.

[megamattman1]

from what I've read, it seems dairygirl has a point. but it's controversial of course.

Edited September 2, 2004 by megamattman1

[Aloysius]

did you read thedude's artical?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]why don't you post what he (Feeny) thought and we'll post why he's wrong....I'm sure phatcatholic wasn't leading when ya'll were going in "circles"...... [/quote]

I'm sure phatcatholic will agree that we both just didn't understand what the other was saying. Actually I think he did most of the not understanding, but I'm willing to admit it was likely unclear on both sides. (we can look it up if you want) You have to understand how language works, and that means when it is effective and when it is not. (by works I don't mean as in effective.. this is an example of how language can be unclear unless we all decide to write legal dissertations) If you want to persist in your condescension, I will take on you or anyone here at intellectual challenges such academic research or even tests (such as IQ tests) to put you who insist on demoralizing me to a rest. (the one's who might be able to beat me, don't demoralize me luckily) I admit I don't make myself clear often times because I'm lazy or just make a mistake, but in fact we all don't, and at least I'm presenting new ideas instead of regurgitating old ones. But now that I'm through with that rant.


I will look into it. It's sad that you all as Catholics don't know why he thought what he did etc other than just saying he had pride. Unless there's evidence that that was actually the reason.

In general, the link and what everyone has shown is that many early church members believed non's and RCs (or actually memebers of the church, probably not really the Catholic Church, but for the sake of argument) can both be saved. It showed that important doctors believed that too. And it showed that recent councils and popes have believed that.

What it doesn't show is more detail into what was believed in the days when "no salvation" was promulgated. Perhaps the popes actually taught, maybe not with the offical words (though even possibly with encyclicals etc), but at least with the ordinary magisterium, that the strict view of "no salvation".

I'm pointing out that traditionalists and even many conservative catholics view VII on the matter as controversial. This is circumstantial proof that the ordinary magisterium may have taught that doctrine in the strict sense.

Proof as thedude and you all provided does offer some defense in general, but it doesn't really make the case where the controversy actually is, when the "no salvation" articles were promulgated. This is why more information is needed. And perhaps Feeny had information on this, that is why I asked. I assumed some of you might have the information because someone studied what I am asking about thoroughly.

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c