Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: SolHero on November 17, 2022, 04:00:22 PM
-
Hi,
I'm very much on board with "Extra Eclesiam Nulla Salus" and I think Catholics need to always keep that in mind, to gain confidence in our Catholic teachings and traditions. Specially when confronted with protestants who want to challenge our dogmas. Can you let me know what you think?
When it comes to non-catholics getting prayers answered I can reason it as Matthew 5:45 "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust." So to me, they obtained graces from God just like rain falls on the just and the unjust. Is that a good interpretation or reasoning?
The other thing I'm struggling with is people who claim to receive words from God. I often hear from people from prayer groups that this person or that person got this message from God or from Our Lady asking us to do x, y and z. I'm extremely careful with that and remind people, at most, it is private revelation and I am not required to believe in those messages as part of my Catholic faith. But then I hear from protestants claiming that God told him/her this or that. So as with the reasoning above, rain/graces from God can fall on any of us but saying that a protestant received a message from God is just unacceptable to me and quite honestly, it upsets me. In fact, the reason why I'm asking for your opinions is because someone (Catholic too), told be to be prepared because Jim Bakker (protestant personality) said that God told him [insert apocalyptical message here]. What is the traditional way of dealing with this type of "private revelation" to non-catholics?
I feel like many people who profess to be Catholics, do not believe in EENS because they act surprise when I mention it. To me, not believing in EENS opens the door to allow ideas to come in that chip away at someone's faith in the Catholic church.
-
I feel like many people who profess to be Catholics, do not believe in EENS because they act surprise when I mention it. To me, not believing in EENS opens the door to allow ideas to come in that chip away at someone's faith in the Catholic church.
Yeah, that's why the Church is in the state it is today. So many Catholics started ignoring the most important of dogmas and so indifferentism creeped in, followed by Modernism, only to emerge publicly as the Vatican II sect.
-
Hi,
I'm very much on board with "Extra Eclesiam Nulla Salus" and I think Catholics need to always keep that in mind, to gain confidence in our Catholic teachings and traditions. Specially when confronted with protestants who want to challenge our dogmas. Can you let me know what you think?
One piece of advice Fr. Wathen gives when dealing with Prots who are only questioning so as to discredit and not actually seeking answers, is to not answer their questions directly, rather answer a question with a question. They ask "why do you worship Mary?" for example. Reply with: "Why do you ask me that, who told you we worship Mary?"
And when they start quoting the Bible, tell them you will not participate because their view of the Bible is not our view of the Bible and bring up teachings from the history and traditions of the Church - two things they do not have.
Here are a few youtube videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSgfQNc_JIEI07nf4lcKo4w) worth watching on this subject as I could not do it any justice in my above 2 paragraphs.
When it comes to non-catholics getting prayers answered I can reason it as Matthew 5:45 "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust." So to me, they obtained graces from God just like rain falls on the just and the unjust. Is that a good interpretation or reasoning?
The other thing I'm struggling with is people who claim to receive words from God. I often hear from people from prayer groups that this person or that person got this message from God or from Our Lady asking us to do x, y and z. I'm extremely careful with that and remind people, at most, it is private revelation and I am not required to believe in those messages as part of my Catholic faith. But then I hear from protestants claiming that God told him/her this or that. So as with the reasoning above, rain/graces from God can fall on any of us but saying that a protestant received a message from God is just unacceptable to me and quite honestly, it upsets me. In fact, the reason why I'm asking for your opinions is because someone (Catholic too), told be to be prepared because Jim Bakker (protestant personality) said that God told him [insert apocalyptical message here]. What is the traditional way of dealing with this type of "private revelation" to non-catholics?
God may (or may not) answer their prayers, but the only graces possible are those which lead them to the Church, to become members of the Church and only IF He sees they will cooperate with those graces. Remember, the value of graces is immeasurable and God does not waste them on anyone that He knows will reject them.
In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse insists if you think you're getting messages as you describe above to ignore them, or to talk back to them and be as absolutely mean as possible demanding them to stop, because they are not from God, God does not work that way. He says do this and if they are from God, which they won't be, but if they are then you will know right away.
I feel like many people who profess to be Catholics, do not believe in EENS because they act surprise when I mention it. To me, not believing in EENS opens the door to allow ideas to come in that chip away at someone's faith in the Catholic church.
IMO, the percentage of Catholics who believe in EENS is likened to St. Louis Marie de Montfort's teaching on the fewness of the saved, on that subject he says:
"The number of the elect is so small — so small — that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world."
-
Hi,
I'm very much on board with "Extra Eclesiam Nulla Salus" and I think Catholics need to always keep that in mind, to gain confidence in our Catholic teachings and traditions. Specially when confronted with protestants who want to challenge our dogmas. Can you let me know what you think?
When it comes to non-catholics getting prayers answered I can reason it as Matthew 5:45 "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust." So to me, they obtained graces from God just like rain falls on the just and the unjust. Is that a good interpretation or reasoning?
The other thing I'm struggling with is people who claim to receive words from God. I often hear from people from prayer groups that this person or that person got this message from God or from Our Lady asking us to do x, y and z. I'm extremely careful with that and remind people, at most, it is private revelation and I am not required to believe in those messages as part of my Catholic faith. But then I hear from protestants claiming that God told him/her this or that. So as with the reasoning above, rain/graces from God can fall on any of us but saying that a protestant received a message from God is just unacceptable to me and quite honestly, it upsets me. In fact, the reason why I'm asking for your opinions is because someone (Catholic too), told be to be prepared because Jim Bakker (protestant personality) said that God told him [insert apocalyptical message here]. What is the traditional way of dealing with this type of "private revelation" to non-catholics?
I feel like many people who profess to be Catholics, do not believe in EENS because they act surprise when I mention it. To me, not believing in EENS opens the door to allow ideas to come in that chip away at someone's faith in the Catholic church.
I think that there are many varying degrees of belief in what "Extra Eccelsiam Nulla Sulus" exactly means. Not having a normal Church hierarchy to explain what exactly the Church believes is part of the reason why there are SO MANY arguments going on about it these days.
Most solid traditional Catholics who have been such for a long time do believe in the dogma because it has always been a teaching of the Church. Now... Those who are new to the traditional Faith or who have come from the novus ordo would likely be confused at first. I am not talking about Feeneyism but a balanced opinion of the dogma.
As for protestants and non-Catholics receiving revelations... It is possible for God and the saints to appear to non-believers. Yet, historically, when they have it was to reveal to them the Faith and help them to become Catholic. Any other "revelation" for non-Catholics should be considered questionable.
It is important to remember that the devil and his minions can disguise themselves as angels of light and that at times even the saints have been confused by such revelations. If I had to guess, I would say that probably most of the protestant/non-Catholic "revelations" are actually caused by the enemies of the Church in order to try and confuse people and keep them in darkness.
Hope that helps clarify a little and set your mind at peace. :cowboy:
-
IMO, the percentage of Catholics who believe in EENS is likened to St. Louis Marie de Montfort's teaching on the fewness of the saved, on that subject he says:
"The number of the elect is so small — so small — that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world."
Stubborn,
Is that quote from True Devotion?
-
I think that there are many varying degrees of belief in what "Extra Eccelsiam Nulla Sulus" exactly means. Not having a normal Church hierarchy to explain what exactly the Church believes is part of the reason why there are SO MANY arguments going on about it these days.
Most solid traditional Catholics who have been such for a long time do believe in the dogma because it has always been a teaching of the Church. Now... Those who are new to the traditional Faith or who have come from the novus ordo would likely be confused at first. I am not talking about Feeneyism but a balanced opinion of the dogma.
As for protestants and non-Catholics receiving revelations... It is possible for God and the saints to appear to non-believers. Yet, historically, when they have it was to reveal to them the Faith and help them to become Catholic. Any other "revelation" for non-Catholics should be considered questionable.
It is important to remember that the devil and his minions can disguise themselves as angels of light and that at times even the saints have been confused by such revelations. If I had to guess, I would say that probably most of the protestant/non-Catholic "revelations" are actually caused by the enemies of the Church in order to try and confuse people and keep them in darkness.
Hope that helps clarify a little and set your mind at peace. :cowboy:
So you basically rambled for 5 paragraphs claming that nobody really knows what the very simple expression "No Salvation Outside the Church" actually means and then asserted that this would help "clarify"? This illustrates the problem. That dogma is about as simple as it gets, and a child can understand it. If you are not a Catholic, you can't go to heaven. Period.
Due to a combination of certain Catholics not liking this dogma and the enemies of the Church needing to undermine it (as it was THE dogma that stood in the way of their dismantling of the Church), suddenly it was said that you needed to be a "theologian" and to write 3 pages to explain what it REALLY means. It has gotten to the point now that even so-called "Traditional Catholics" assert (based on this misapplied dictum that we must believe dogmas as the Church believes them), that if someone asks you whether a non-Catholic can be saved and you respond with a simple "No" you are immediately suspect of heresy, that greatest heresy of our times, "Feeneyism" (putting Nestorianism, Arianism, and Lutheranism combined all to shame). Catholics, including simple lay people, are expected to pay lipservice to the dogma, and then to immediately append a "... but" at the end and then proceeding to rattle off 3 pages of Clintonesque distinctions so that by the end the dogma ("as the Church understands it") at best means absolutely nothing (reducing to a tautology where if you're saved that means your Catholic) and at worst allegedly means the OPPOSITE of what it actually says (thus making a mockery of all Catholic teaching). It's amazing that the Church defined something in a single sentence that actually requires a full-length 3-page essay to "explain". What an oversight by the Church not to have properly defined the dogma but to throw out there something that has resulted in nothing but confusion ... as you assert above.
Bill Clinton would be proud of the rambling nonsensical incoherent and scandalous "explanations" (i.e. explaining away of) EENS that Trad Catholics begin to spout the minute they're asked about this dogma. "There is no salvation outside the Church?" That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, and "Church" and "salvation" ... as if these terms have not been adequately defined and well understood since the beginning. It's a shame that after 2,000 years of Church, we don't even know what "Church" is.
How should a Catholic understand and answer the question "Is there salvation outside the Church?"
But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Holy Office under St. Pius X, 1907:
“Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
And yet we have the founder of the Society of St. Pius X asserting that those who died as infidels can be saved, and we have 99% of "Traditional Catholic" clergy asserting the same. In fact, if you dare to answer this question as St. Pius X directed, without offering three pages of distinctions, you're immediately suspect of heresy and in some places will be denied the Sacraments.
If my children ask me whether our Protestant or Muslim neighbor who recently passed away could have been saved, the answer is simply, "No, only Catholics can be saved." Period. End of sentence. End of thought.
-
As for "revelations" to non-Catholics, God obviously CAN do as He pleases, for purposes known only to Him, usually with a view toward granting some kind of actual grace toward their conversion.
Generally speaking, however, 99% of all claims to private revelations are fraudulent, being of human origin, while 90% of the remaining 1% are of diabolical origin. Obviously I don't have actual stats, so this is just my generalization. Human fraud can be either deliberate, conscious, and intentional (with a view toward some gain -- fame or fortune, the respect and admiration of others) or else an active imagination combined with an inability to discern between the workings of their own imagination and reality. Some people with active imaginations ... it's little wonder that the vast majority of "private revelation" claims come from women ... decide that what was really the product of their own imagination actually came from God. St. Theresa of Avila, when she was told of a nun having "visions" would order that more meat be given in her diet. True "private revelations" are very rare.
God avoids granting private revelations in a way that might give the impression that He approves of something He does not. Thus, He does not grant them to non-Catholics, as this might lead to the impression that God favors and approves of non-Catholics and works through them. God might work IN them, toward their conversion, but He will not work THROUGH them.
Unfortunately, even some of the Traditional Bishops have succuмbed to excessive credulity with regard to private revelations, Bishop Williamson to "Dawn Marie," Valtorta, Akita, and Garabandal, and Bishop Fellay (and quite a number of priests) to this Rossiniere (Cornaz). Archbishop Thuc fell for Palmar de Troya (led there by a seminary professor from Econe).
But our attitude, following the mind of the Church, must be that of extreme skepticism. Whenever presented with claims of private revelations or miracles, the Church's default attitude is that they are not genuine, and the VERY FIRST criterion the Church applies is that of sound doctrine If something runs afoul of Catholic doctrine, it is immediately rejected without any further consideration. If the doctrine is sound, then the investigation proceeds to evaluationg the virtues of the visionary (whether he be Catholic, demonstrate solid virtue, especially with regard to obedience). Church will never even consider revelations to a non-Catholic, as those are non-starters right out of the gate.
So we too apply Catholic theology to test these private revelations and never modify Catholic theology based on the claims of private revelations or based on miracles. Thus we have Bishop Williamson growing increasingly "soft" regarding the New Mass, as "undisputed Eucharistic miracles" ("just look them up on the internet", he says :facepalm:), at first asserting these prove validity and then that the NOM cannot be "completely" condemned.
Nonsense. Satan can simulate just about any "miracle" with very little exertion on his part. So the ones that cannot be written off as either due to natural causes (including human fraud), for him these cannot be "disputed" ... as of the devil cannot also simulate "miracles". It would require little effort on the devil's part to introduce some blood or human heart muscle onto the scene, replacing some of the bread with flesh and blood. We know that the New Mass is a bastard rite that displeases God and harms souls. God would never work a "miracle" that might possibly give the impression that the New Mass pleases Him ... which is precisel how most would take such "miracles". Well, if God deigned to work a "miracle" in the NOM, it must be valid AND it must be OK for me to go to the NOM, since it can't displease Him too much if I go. Why would God encourage people to assist that this offensive Protestantized bastard rite of "Mass" that has blasphemously replaced the Catholic Offertory with тαℓмυdic filth?
To take this one step farther, however, these "miracles", if not due to human fraud but rather to diabolical activity, would actually desmosnstrate the INVALIDITY of the NOM, because God would not allow the devil to tamper with the actual valid Blessed Sacrament.
So, no, God does not grant private revelations to non-Catholics except with a view to their conversion. You'll see that many / most of their purported "messages" from God actually confirm their Protestant views ... and therefore must be rejected out of hand as either made-up or diabolical. God would never approve or or condone Protestantism. As I said, we apply Catholic doctrine to test revelations (those alleged by non-Catholics are to be rejected out of hand). So we reject Prot revelations rather than to start questioning whether Protestantism is REALLY wrong and offensive to God ... and questioning EENS dogma.
Those who easily fall prey to private revelations, miracles, and other such allegedly-preternatural phenomena demonstrate a weakness of faith and a lack of conviction in their principles. We don't need this garbage. We have our faith and the teaching of the Church. We don't need some "revelation" to a Traditional Catholic, like a Dawn Marie or Rossiniere, to demonstrate that Traditional Catholicism pleases God and is the right path through this crisis, and that the NOM is offensive to God.
-
So you basically rambled for 5 paragraphs claming that nobody really knows what the very simple expression "No Salvation Outside the Church" actually means and then asserted that this would help "clarify"? This illustrates the problem. That dogma is about as simple as it gets, and a child can understand it. If you are not a Catholic, you can't go to heaven. Period.
Due to a combination of certain Catholics not liking this dogma and the enemies of the Church needing to undermine it (as it was THE dogma that stood in the way of their dismantling of the Church), suddenly it was said that you needed to be a "theologian" and to write 3 pages to explain what it REALLY means. It has gotten to the point now that even so-called "Traditional Catholics" assert (based on this misapplied dictum that we must believe dogmas as the Church believes them), that if someone asks you whether a non-Catholic can be saved and you respond with a simple "No" you are immediately suspect of heresy, that greatest heresy of our times, "Feeneyism" (putting Nestorianism, Arianism, and Lutheranism combined all to shame). Catholics, including simple lay people, are expected to pay lipservice to the dogma, and then to immediately append a "... but" at the end and then proceeding to rattle off 3 pages of Clintonesque distinctions so that by the end the dogma ("as the Church understands it") at best means absolutely nothing (reducing to a tautology where if you're saved that means your Catholic) and at worst allegedly means the OPPOSITE of what it actually says (thus making a mockery of all Catholic teaching). It's amazing that the Church defined something in a single sentence that actually requires a full-length 3-page essay to "explain". What an oversight by the Church not to have properly defined the dogma but to throw out there something that has resulted in nothing but confusion ... as you assert above.
Bill Clinton would be proud of the rambling nonsensical incoherent and scandalous "explanations" (i.e. explaining away of) EENS that Trad Catholics begin to spout the minute they're asked about this dogma. "There is no salvation outside the Church?" That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, and "Church" and "salvation" ... as if these terms have not been adequately defined and well understood since the beginning. It's a shame that after 2,000 years of Church, we don't even know what "Church" is.
How should a Catholic understand and answer the question "Is there salvation outside the Church?"
Holy Office under St. Pius X, 1907:
And yet we have the founder of the Society of St. Pius X asserting that those who died as infidels can be saved, and we have 99% of "Traditional Catholic" clergy asserting the same. In fact, if you dare to answer this question as St. Pius X directed, without offering three pages of distinctions, you're immediately suspect of heresy and in some places will be denied the Sacraments.
If my children ask me whether our Protestant or Muslim neighbor who recently passed away could have been saved, the answer is simply, "No, only Catholics can be saved." Period. End of sentence. End of thought.
(We have to do it manually :facepalm: )
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartbest.com%2Fcliparts%2FKTj%2FXGn%2FKTjXGn58c.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4aa6e0801184e68e7eb07ea43dc45767fda7f192b3f03d77405502da018eeca8&ipo=images)
Not totally criticizing your content but your tone... boy.
-
Stubborn,
Is that quote from True Devotion?
I’m not Stubborn(obviously) but this quote is from Friends of The Cross by St. Louis Marie De Montfort. It’s a short read and very good!
-
Hi,
I'm very much on board with "Extra Eclesiam Nulla Salus" and I think Catholics need to always keep that in mind, to gain confidence in our Catholic teachings and traditions. Specially when confronted with protestants who want to challenge our dogmas. Can you let me know what you think?
When it comes to non-catholics getting prayers answered I can reason it as Matthew 5:45 "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust." So to me, they obtained graces from God just like rain falls on the just and the unjust. Is that a good interpretation or reasoning?
The other thing I'm struggling with is people who claim to receive words from God. I often hear from people from prayer groups that this person or that person got this message from God or from Our Lady asking us to do x, y and z. I'm extremely careful with that and remind people, at most, it is private revelation and I am not required to believe in those messages as part of my Catholic faith. But then I hear from protestants claiming that God told him/her this or that. So as with the reasoning above, rain/graces from God can fall on any of us but saying that a protestant received a message from God is just unacceptable to me and quite honestly, it upsets me. In fact, the reason why I'm asking for your opinions is because someone (Catholic too), told be to be prepared because Jim Bakker (protestant personality) said that God told him [insert apocalyptical message here]. What is the traditional way of dealing with this type of "private revelation" to non-catholics?
I feel like many people who profess to be Catholics, do not believe in EENS because they act surprise when I mention it. To me, not believing in EENS opens the door to allow ideas to come in that chip away at someone's faith in the Catholic church.
I’m a catechumen, and this is one of the questions I asked my priest. When it comes to non-Catholic prayers being answered the short answer is this: No.
I’m not in sanctifying grace, so I’m not in friendship with God. BUT, God IS pleased with my prayers.
He has continued to give me graces to persevere in making it home. I have been a Catechumen for over a year now and I can tell you that if I didn’t pray I wouldn’t have made it this far. So in a certain sense He HAS answered my prayers.
God’s Ways are not our ways.
-
I’m not Stubborn(obviously) but this quote is from Friends of The Cross by St. Louis Marie De Montfort. It’s a short read and very good!
Thank you.
-
I’m a catechumen, and this is one of the questions I asked my priest. When it comes to non-Catholic prayers being answered the short answer is this: No.
Indeed, our faith really is simple, consisting of "Yes yes" and "No no" as Our Lord taught, and the faithful are not expected to be theologians to believe any dogma of the Church. We are not expected to ... nor should we ... expound for 3 pages about what the Church "REALLY" means about there being no salvation outside the Church. We believe in, adhere to, and accept the "short answer" ... as you refer to it.
And what purpose does it serve or what fruit does it bear to equivocate so much about the dogma? It does nothing more than to undermine belief in the dogma. It doesn't lead to some gnostic "true understanding" but rather to disbelief.
Traditional Catholics can't seem to get their minds around the fact that the New Vatican II ecclesiology is simply the natural extension of belief that non-Catholics can be saved (which ironically many / most Traditional Catholics believe).
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church.
MINOR: Non-Catholics (Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims) can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Non-Catholics (Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims) can be inside the Church.
So if the Church can now include not only Catholics but also non-Catholics (Protestants, Jєωs, and Muslims), you've got V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell. Trad Catholics (rightly) call out this V2 ecclesiology as heretical and yet ironically believe in the same ecclesiology if they simply think about it for 30 seconds.
-
Not totally criticizing your content but your tone... boy.
Describe the "tone" to which you object ... boy.
There not a word of what I wrote that isn't true, and the post to which I respond that was meant to "clarify" ... claimed to do so while asserting that nobody really knows what EES dogma means.
I think you don't LIKE the the tone because the criticism applies to you and to 90% of Traditional Catholics who think of and approach EENS dogma precisely as I described.
-
Describe the "tone" to which you object ... boy.
There not a word of what I wrote that isn't true, and the post to which I respond that was meant to "clarify" ... claimed to do so while asserting that nobody really knows what EES dogma means.
I think you don't LIKE the the tone because the criticism applies to you and to 90% of Traditional Catholics who think of and approach EENS dogma precisely as I described.
Your condescending tone:
"So you basically rambled for 5 paragraphs claiming that nobody really knows what the very simple expression "No Salvation Outside the Church..."
-
So you basically rambled for 5 paragraphs claming that nobody really knows what the very simple expression "No Salvation Outside the Church" actually means and then asserted that this would help "clarify"? This illustrates the problem. That dogma is about as simple as it gets, and a child can understand it. If you are not a Catholic, you can't go to heaven. Period.
I was not trying to make this into a Feeneyite argument. EENS is definitely a Church dogma. Feeneyism isn't.
It is an opinion about defining how the Church exact understood the dogma.
The OP said that most Catholics he met did not believe in EENS. I was trying to express in the first couple of paragraphs that almost all long standing traditional Catholics I know believe in the dogma but that some newcomers might be confused about it because they may have been tainted by previous novus ordo or protestant beliefs. That is all I was trying to say in the first couple paragraphs.
The OP's question was mainly about whether non-Catholics can receive revelations from God. That was the part I meant to comment and help "clarify" concerning and say that it is possible but not likely.
-
I was not trying to make this into a Feeneyite argument. EENS is definitely a Church dogma. Feeneyism isn't.
It is an opinion about defining how the Church exact understood the dogma.
The OP said that most Catholics he met did not believe in EENS. I was trying to express in the first couple of paragraphs that almost all long standing traditional Catholics I know believe in the dogma but that some newcomers might be confused about it because they may have been tainted by previous novus ordo or protestant beliefs. That is all I was trying to say in the first couple paragraphs.
The OP's question was mainly about whether non-Catholics can receive revelations from God. That was the part I meant to comment and help "clarify" concerning and say that it is possible but not likely.
I didn't even mention the expression Baptism of Desire in my post, nor even Baptism at all.
This notion that anyone who believes that non-Catholics cannot be saved is a "Feeneyite" speaks volumes about what Traditional Catholics believe about EENS.
-
In fact, I very deliberately avoided any mention of Baptism of Baptism of Desire, precisely to see how many people would interpret that as "Feeneyism", to illustrate precisely what's going on.
Most people don't know that Father Feeney's position on Baptism of Desire came later.
This is what Father Feeney was up against. Cardinal Cushing: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." (quote from a biographer favorable to Cushing)
https://tinyurl.com/yckrve44
Father Feeney became famous for his public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Most people fail to realize that, at that time, the world’s bishops were by no means staunch traditionalists. Most of the world’s bishops had already embraced the heresy of indifferentism, which explains why almost all of them signed the heretical Vatican II docuмents just a short time later. ... In fact, during his time, Father Feeney wrote to all of the bishops of the world about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and received only three positive responses. In other words, only three of the world’s bishops at that time manifested a positive belief in the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No salvation as it had been defined. It is no wonder that Vatican II went through with virtually no resistance from the Episcopate.
Father Feeney believed and preached the dogma – as it had been defined – publicly in Boston. He believed and preached that unless a man embraces the Catholic Faith – whether he be a Jєω, Muslim, Protestant or agnostic – he will perish forever in Hell. Many converted, and many were angry. He had not a few enemies, especially among the increasingly modernist, politically correct and compromised clergy.
One of his main enemies was the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, a B’nai Brith (Jєωιѕн Freemasons) man of the year, and someone who called the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation “nonsense.” In April of 1949, Cushing silenced Fr. Feeney and interdicted St. Benedict Center (the apostolate affiliated with Fr. Feeney). The reason given by Cushing was “disobedience,” but the real reason was Father Feeney’s public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. It was not due to Father Feeney’s stand against the theory of baptism of desire either, since this wasn’t first published until 1952. Cushing’s dissatisfaction with Fr. Feeney was strictly based on Father Feeney’s stand for the defined dogma that only Catholics – and those who become Catholics – can be saved.
Cushing had allies with other heretical clergymen in Boston, the area where the controversy erupted. Father John Ryan, S.J., head of the Adult Education Institute of Boston College, stated in the fall of 1947: “I do not agree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on salvation outside the Church.” Father Stephen A. Mulcahy, S.J., Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences of Boston College, termed it: “Father Feeney’s doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.” And Father J.J. McEleney, S.J., Provincial of the New England Province of the Society of Jesus, told Father Feeney in a personal meeting, that he was being ordered to transfer to Holy Cross College because of “Your doctrine.” Father Feeney quickly responded, “My doctrine on what?” To which Fr. McEleney replied, “I’m sorry, we can’t go into that.”
...
On December 2, 1948, the President of Boston College, Father William L. Keleher, S.J., held an interview with Dr. Maluf, who was an ally of Father Feeney in the stand for the dogma. Fr. Keleher stated:
“Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his doctrine on salvation… He (Fr. Feeney) kept repeating such phrases as ‘There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.’”
...
On April 13, 1949, Fr. Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at Boston College for accusing the school of heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. In his April 14 statement to the press explaining the reason behind their dismissal, Fr. Keleher stated:
“They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance. Their doctrine is erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at Boston College. They were informed that they must cease such teaching or leave the faculty.”
Most of the above happened in 1949, and it wasn't until about 1952 that "Baptism of Desire" came up.
-
I didn't even mention the expression Baptism of Desire in my post, nor even Baptism at all.
This notion that anyone who believes that non-Catholics cannot be saved is a "Feeneyite" speaks volumes about what Traditional Catholics believe about EENS.
I never said that "Anyone who believes that non-Catholics cannot be saved is a "Feeneyite"."
I was actually trying to express that most traditional Catholics whom I know DO believe in EENS and that only Catholics can be saved...and most of them in fact aren't Feenyites. :popcorn:
-
In fact, I very deliberately avoided any mention of Baptism of Baptism of Desire, precisely to see how many people would interpret that as "Feeneyism", to illustrate precisely what's going on.
Most people don't know that Father Feeney's position on Baptism of Desire came later.
This is what Father Feeney was up against. Cardinal Cushing: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." (quote from a biographer favorable to Cushing)
https://tinyurl.com/yckrve44
Most of the above happened in 1949, and it wasn't until about 1952 that "Baptism of Desire" came up.
I am familiar with the story as I used to be an Dogmatic Feeneyite back before some good priests helped me out of being as extreme...;):incense:
-
I’m not Stubborn(obviously) but this quote is from Friends of The Cross by St. Louis Marie De Montfort. It’s a short read and very good!
That quote is found on multiple sites, but I got it from here (https://fewnessofthesaved.com/getQuotes.html).
-
I am familiar with the story as I used to be an Dogmatic Feeneyite back before some good priests helped me out of being as extreme...;):incense:
I never heard of a "Dogmatic Feeneyite"
At any rate, since he was brought up, that whole slanderous mess is summed up in a few measly paragraphs in the introduction of the book "The Loyolas and the Cabots." What continues to amaze me is how utterly effective was the effort to completely discredit this courageous priest, even after all this time, and how effectively the tactic still works whenever it gets applied against others.......
"This book is going to press one year after the people of the United States, and eventually the people of the
world were shocked by, a stubborn profession of faith made on the part of some Boston Catholics, who were
at once silenced and interdicted by the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal authorities in what has come to be known
far and wide as the “Boston Heresy Case.”
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted.
If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine." - The Loyolas and the Cabots
-
Quote from: AMDGJMJ on Yesterday at 07:13:57 PM
I was not trying to make this into a Feeneyite argument. EENS is definitely a Church dogma. Feeneyism isn't.
It is an opinion about defining how the Church exact understood the dogma.
The OP said that most Catholics he met did not believe in EENS. I was trying to express in the first couple of paragraphs that almost all long standing traditional Catholics I know believe in the dogma but that some newcomers might be confused about it because they may have been tainted by previous novus ordo or protestant beliefs. That is all I was trying to say in the first couple paragraphs.
The OP's question was mainly about whether non-Catholics can receive revelations from God. That was the part I meant to comment and help "clarify" concerning and say that it is possible but not likely.
I didn't even mention the expression Baptism of Desire in my post, nor even Baptism at all.
This notion that anyone who believes that non-Catholics cannot be saved is a "Feeneyite" speaks volumes about what Traditional Catholics believe about EENS.
:confused:
The quote "didn't even mention the expression Baptism of Desire . . . nor even Baptism at all."
-
I never heard of a "Dogmatic Feeneyite"
At any rate, since he was brought up, that whole slanderous mess is summed up in a few measly paragraphs in the introduction of the book "The Loyolas and the Cabots." What continues to amaze me is how utterly effective was the effort to completely discredit this courageous priest, even after all this time, and how effectively the tactic still works whenever it gets applied against others.......
"This book is going to press one year after the people of the United States, and eventually the people of the
world were shocked by, a stubborn profession of faith made on the part of some Boston Catholics, who were
at once silenced and interdicted by the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal authorities in what has come to be known
far and wide as the “Boston Heresy Case.”
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted.
If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine." - The Loyolas and the Cabots
Great book, The Loyolas and the Cabots. I would also recommend Gary Potter's, After The Boston Heresy Case.
-
In fact, I very deliberately avoided any mention of Baptism of Baptism of Desire, precisely to see how many people would interpret that as "Feeneyism", to illustrate precisely what's going on.
Most people don't know that Father Feeney's position on Baptism of Desire came later.
This is what Father Feeney was up against. Cardinal Cushing: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." (quote from a biographer favorable to Cushing)
https://tinyurl.com/yckrve44
Most of the above happened in 1949, and it wasn't until about 1952 that "Baptism of Desire" came up.
It is very unfortunate that the issue of "Feeneyism" has devolved into the question of BOD.
In the famous Holy Office Letter, I believe - if I remember correctly - the article in From the Housetops that was concentrated on was Karam's article, "Reply to a Liberal," where he said:
Question 3 : Is There Any Case When Baptism of the Holy Spirit Without Actual Reception of Baptism of Water Can Be Sufficient for Salvation?
Now that we have considered the defined truths which must be believed, namely, the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of membership in the Catholic Church, the absolute necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff, the absolute necessity of baptism of water, for salvation, there remains but one point to examine; that is, whether there is any case where a man can be saved without actually receiving the water of baptism on his head.
At this point, we have to depart from infallibly defined dogma and must rely on the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors, because it has never so far been defined that any human being can be saved who was not actually baptized, except for those who lived before the coming of Our Lord, and except for the martyrs.
What is the teaching of the Fathers and the Doctors? Some Fathers deny that there is any case in which a man could be saved without the actual reception of the water of baptism (with the exception of the martyrs alone). But most of them agree in saying that there is one case, and only one case, when a man could be saved without having been actually baptized with water. It is the case of a catechumen who confesses the Catholic Faith, who is sorry for his past sins, who is burning with desire to be baptized and to join the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but who, having been kept without baptism by the Church until he has been fully instructed, is overtaken by death suddenly and is incapable of receiving baptism. Such a catechumen, it is believed, can be saved, if he makes an act of perfect charity. 85
In answer to our third question, therefore, we shall say that, according to the majority of the Fathers and Doctors, baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled:
First, that person must have the Catholic Faith. (We have already proved that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and that not even the Sacrament of Baptism can be profitable for salvation if the subject who receives it does not confess the Catholic Faith.)
Second, he must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For example, St. Bernard says that he must have an “entire yearning for the sacrament of Jesus.” 86
Third, he must have perfect charity. For St. Robert Bellarmine says that only “perfect conversion can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity. ” 87 St. Augustine says that he must have “faith and conversion of the heart. ” 88 St. Thomas says that, as in the case of the Sacrament of Penance, so also in the Sacrament of Baptism, if sanctifying grace is to be received previous to the Sacrament, a perfect act of charity is necessary, for “if an adult is not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain remission of his sins, he obtains this remission by the power of baptism, in the very act of being baptized. ” 89 St. Bernard says that “right faith, God-fearing hope, and sincere charity” must be present. 90
Fourth, he must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church , — for, as we have shown, not even actual Baptism is profitable for salvation if it is received outside the Catholic Church (except for babies) and without an explicit will to join the Church. Much less, therefore, does baptism in voto profit for salvation if it does not include an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.
Fifth, he must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an absolute impossibility, not because of a contempt for it. Thus, St. Augustine says that baptism of the Spirit, or perfect conversion to God, “may indeed be found when Baptism has not yet been received, but never when it has been despised. For it should never in any way be called a conversion of the heart to God when the sacrament of God has been despised. ” 91 In the same way St. Bernard says that, since the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, “whoever refuses now to be baptized, after the remedy of baptism has been made accessible to all everywhere, adds of his own accord a sin of pride to the general original stain, carrying within himself a double cause of the most just damnation, if he happens to leave the body in the same state.” 92 Also, St. Thomas says, “It is necessary, in order that a man might enter into the kingdom of God, that he approach the baptism of water actually (in re), as it is in all those who are baptized; or in voto, as it is in the martyrs and the catechumens who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum); or in figure, as in the ancient Fathers,” — that is, in those before Christ. 93
Now that we have shown in what sense a person who has the desire for baptism can be saved, let us enumerate again Father Donnelly’s three doctrines which we listed at the beginning of Part III, namely, (1) that a person can be said to have desire for Baptism while being totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith and ignorant of the Baptism of water; (2) that a person can be said to have a desire for Baptism while knowing the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith and refusing both; (3) that a person can be said to have a desire for Baptism while knowing the Baptism of water and refusing it. From the evidence we have presented, it must be clear that these doctrines are erroneous and cannot be held.
https://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html#3.:~:text=Question%203%20%3A%20Is,cannot%20be%20held.
When the controversy was roiling, Fr. Feeney said that Karam's position was his. It is worth quoting the highlighted part: "a person who has the desire for baptism can be saved." If one wants to speak in an informed way on the subject, it would be worthwhile to read all of Karam's Reply.
That position - Karam's above - does not deny or reject the Council of Trent, even accepting that Trent taught BOD.
Their is so much obfuscation and confusion on the real issue, which has been sidetracked: whether an implicit desire to enter the Church is sufficient. BOD only later became an issue, since baptism is the entry into the Church. So the issue of BOD, by implication, was under the surface, and then only really in the sense of an implicit BOD. And, again, not on the surface, but logically lurking under it.
The tragedy here is that a position - Karam's above - that did not go against the Council of Trent, or the Catechism of Trent on BOD, which speaks of a desire for the sacrament and perfect contrition (as Karam does) - was found to be contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium in a private letter to a heretical bishop (Cushing) that never found its way into the official organ of Magisterial teaching, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
And the true authority of a pope, and the Magisterium, has never addressed nor settled the issue.
But as I have repeatedly said, there is a "core issue" regarding BOD that I believe is Magisterial and expressed in the Council of Trent: the possibility of justification and salvation (if one dies in that state of justification) by something short of receipt of the actual sacrament, by a vow or desire under certain conditions.
The original Feeneyites (as exhibited in Karam's Reply), including Father Feeney, recognized that teaching. As does Br. Andre and the current SBC.
DR
-
It is very unfortunate that the issue of "Feeneyism" has devolved into the question of BOD.
I agree and I apologize if I caused any confusion. I have a lot of respect for Father Feeney. I only used the term "Feeneyism" because that is how most people understand the "BOD" topic.
I probably should have said "Dogmatic non-BOD". Basically I was temporarily in the extreme camp that believed that "Baptism of Desire" was absolutely heretical and that you had to believe that to be saved. 😬
Anyhow... Sorry if what I ever say here doesn't make sense. Lots of distractions mentally and physically with being pregnant and having two little boys. 😜
-
What is the teaching of the Fathers and the Doctors? Some Fathers deny that there is any case in which a man could be saved without the actual reception of the water of baptism (with the exception of the martyrs alone). But most of them agree in saying that there is one case, and only one case, when a man could be saved without having been actually baptized with water. It is the case of a catechumen who confesses the Catholic Faith, who is sorry for his past sins, who is burning with desire to be baptized and to join the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but who, having been kept without baptism by the Church until he has been fully instructed, is overtaken by death suddenly and is incapable of receiving baptism. Such a catechumen, it is believed, can be saved, if he makes an act of perfect charity.
See, this is where the idea fails for me because such a person would never die without the sacrament that God made a requirement for salvation. Because God made it a requirement, He is duty bound to provide it to all whom He intends to save, it's just that simple. Who will accuse God of being awol or shirking His duty at such a critical moment when the eternity of a sincere soul desiring to receive the sacrament is at stake?
When reading such things, does anyone ever realize that the above scenario itself is purely hypothetical with the most disastrous ending possible? The only reason for the scenario is in order to avoid that type of ending and have a happy ending via a BOD. This is the only way this impossible scenario should be understood.
Whereas were it an actual situation, reception of the sacrament before death is an absolute certainty - but in order to believe this means you must have faith primarily in Divine Providence. Which is to say that in order to believe or even to give any credence at all to the quoted scenario is to either lack faith in Divine Providence, or have none.
There are only two possible outcomes regardless of the circuмstances:
1) God will provide the sacrament and he would be saved.
2) God will not provide the sacrament and he would not be saved.
-
I agree and I apologize if I caused any confusion. I have a lot of respect for Father Feeney. I only used the term "Feeneyism" because that is how most people understand the "BOD" topic.
I probably should have said "Dogmatic non-BOD". Basically I was temporarily in the extreme camp that believed that "Baptism of Desire" was absolutely heretical and that you had to believe that to be saved. 😬
Anyhow... Sorry if what I ever say here doesn't make sense. Lots of distractions mentally and physically with being pregnant and having two little boys. 😜
AMDGJMJ,
That's a whopper of an acronym. :laugh1:
If anything that I said gave you the impression that anything I wrote was in response to you or in some way critical of you, please get rid of the notion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take care of those boys and God bless you and the little one on the way. May it be a girl, but a cause for rejoicing most importantly in any event. I have four boys and one girl, so . . . I speak from some personal experience.
Take care,
DR
-
AMDGJMJ,
That's a whopper of an acronym. :laugh1:
If anything that I said gave you the impression that anything I wrote was in response to you or in some way critical of you, please get rid of the notion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take care of those boys and God bless you and the little one on the way. May it be a girl, but a cause for rejoicing most importantly in any event. I have four boys and one girl, so . . . I speak from some personal experience.
Take care,
DR
No worries. I didn't take your response as critical. I just figured that you were trying to clear Father Feeney's name and I felt kind of bad in case people might take what I had written wrong. Sometimes things I write come out otherwise than I mean them to when I am pregnant or busy with the boys. ::)
We actually did find out that baby #3 is another boy. :laugh2:
Hopefully one day we will have a girl, but for now is seems to be God's will that we have a little band of boys. :popcorn:
Oh, and AMGJ stands for "ad majorem Dei Gloriam" (for the greater glory of God) and JMJ stands for "Jesus Mary and Joseph". I grew up writing the full "AMDGJMJ" on top of my homeschooling work and anything else I wrote. Though it would be on the top middle of my work and look more like this:
AMDG
JMJ
+
:cowboy:
-
The other thing I'm struggling with is people who claim to receive words from God. I often hear from people from prayer groups that this person or that person got this message from God or from Our Lady asking us to do x, y and z. I'm extremely careful with that and remind people, at most, it is private revelation and I am not required to believe in those messages as part of my Catholic faith.
.
No, no, no. Whenever you hear someone claiming to have received words from God, the correct response is to perform this gesture:
(https://i2.wp.com/www.yentelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cuckoo-sign-Barney-Stinson.gif?resize=290%2C221&ssl=1)
-
The other thing I'm struggling with is people who claim to receive words from God. I often hear from people from prayer groups that this person or that person got this message from God or from Our Lady asking us to do x, y and z. I'm extremely careful with that and remind people, at most, it is private revelation and I am not required to believe in those messages as part of my Catholic faith. But then I hear from protestants claiming that God told him/her this or that. So as with the reasoning above, rain/graces from God can fall on any of us but saying that a protestant received a message from God is just unacceptable to me and quite honestly, it upsets me. In fact, the reason why I'm asking for your opinions is because someone (Catholic too), told be to be prepared because Jim Bakker (protestant personality) said that God told him [insert apocalyptical message here]. What is the traditional way of dealing with this type of "private revelation" to non-catholics?
To put it simply, ignore these messages.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1:8
-
So we too apply Catholic theology to test these private revelations and never modify Catholic theology based on the claims of private revelations or based on miracles. Thus we have Bishop Williamson growing increasingly "soft" regarding the New Mass, as "undisputed Eucharistic miracles" ("just look them up on the internet", he says :facepalm:), at first asserting these prove validity and then that the NOM cannot be "completely" condemned.
Nonsense. Satan can simulate just about any "miracle" with very little exertion on his part. So the ones that cannot be written off as either due to natural causes (including human fraud), for him these cannot be "disputed" ... as of the devil cannot also simulate "miracles". It would require little effort on the devil's part to introduce some blood or human heart muscle onto the scene, replacing some of the bread with flesh and blood. We know that the New Mass is a bastard rite that displeases God and harms souls. God would never work a "miracle" that might possibly give the impression that the New Mass pleases Him ... which is precisel how most would take such "miracles". Well, if God deigned to work a "miracle" in the NOM, it must be valid AND it must be OK for me to go to the NOM, since it can't displease Him too much if I go. Why would God encourage people to assist that this offensive Protestantized bastard rite of "Mass" that has blasphemously replaced the Catholic Offertory with тαℓмυdic filth?
To take this one step farther, however, these "miracles", if not due to human fraud but rather to diabolical activity, would actually desmosnstrate the INVALIDITY of the NOM, because God would not allow the devil to tamper with the actual valid Blessed Sacrament.
Thank you for bringing up Eucharistic miracles. I can't to wrap my head around that and perhaps Bishop Williamson has a similar problem. I want to believe in Eucharistic miracles in general and I'm uneasy being skeptical. In fact, I feel like I can only question them in a forum like this. Family members would think I'm an idiot for denying them in spite of the "undisputed" or "irrefutable" evidence. But may be what is at the core of all this, make something difficult to deny which made me think of Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
I went to an exhibition of Eucharistic Miracles and noticed this gem in the picture below. What you see there is not a piece or modern art, no that is supposed to be a Tabernacle (hidden somewhere on the side, instead of in a prominent place) at a church in Argentina where, as it is claimed, a Eucharistic miracle took place.
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/_6Lsmxwejj_8dbiGOPmRkOfVUP8BbCSXuqoBMM9tvxk/rs:fit:284:300:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp/Z2luYWxzL2IzLzYw/L2U1L2IzNjBlNTYw/MzBlMjI5YmQ3NTgz/NWRmY2Q1MThhOTk4/LmpwZw)