Author Topic: 1949 Letter from Holy Office Correcting Feeneyite Error (Read 49092 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #61 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:34:16 AM »

why the year 1800, have we had a vacant seat since then, now???

how about "show me...prior to 1850..."?

Jehanne · « **Reply #62 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:35:35 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: SJB
Membership in the Church, as defined by Pius XII, is NOT implicit.

Quote
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Outside of which no one at all will be saved. But, he doesn't say that, does he? I am still waiting for my pre-1800 source.

What error was Pius XII addressing here? Do you even know, Mr. Historian?

It was written during WWII as the h0Ɩ0cαųst was swinging into high gear. Perhaps Pius XII wanted to distance himself from nαzιsm yet appear orthodox in his beliefs.

as you have been reading Cornwall?.......orthodox as far as most of us can tell (except you and CM)

No, I have not been reading him -- never heard of him.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #63 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:38:20 AM »

Jehanne · « **Reply #64 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:40:21 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

why the year 1800, have we had a vacant seat since then, now???

how about "show me...prior to 1850..."?

If the "teaching" that I highlighted in bold above were true, then one could find it in the writings of the Fathers or the scholastics. It, like so many of the "innovations" of Vatican II, is a product of modernistic theology, which attempts to retain Catholic "spirituality" while jettisoning the theology of the Church. Thanks, but no thanks. Remember, John Dominic Crossan is a professing Catholic, as are many of the "Catholic" scholars of the Jesus Seminar. If you think that modernism entered the Church at the Second Vatican Council and not before, I think that you are naive.