A bit surprising that pax is so anti-sede yet he sides with a priest who was a sede...

Father Feeney was not a sede. He always acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as the rightful heir to Blessed Peter. He did, on the other hand, have a bit of an obedience problem.

You guys are at cross-purposes.

There is no salvation outside the Church.  That means absolutely none.  Not any.  Zero.  Nada.

All of the approved theologians teach this, there are no exceptions (this doesn't include heterodox theologians, such as the ones who were silenced before Vatican II and then re-emerged to bring us Vatican II, because they were not "approved" but rather disapproved).

Implicit faith is a standard doctrine in all of the manuals.  Any Catholic who doesn't know about some dogma or other (e.g. that Antichrist will be a individual person) still believes that dogma, but by implicit rather than explicit faith.

Anybody who dies and is saved, has died within the Church.

That does not mean that they had to be a member of the Church, because membership and being "within" are distinct concepts with distinct meanings.  The Church has never defined that only "members of the Church" go to heaven.

In order to be a member of the Church, one must be baptised (i.e. with water).  St. Emerentiana went to heaven, obviously, but she was not baptised.  She had original and any actual sins remitted by desire for baptism and perfect charity.  Obviously she had supernatural faith.  She was within the Church, but not a member of the Church.

In order to be within the Church at death one must be in the state of grace.  In order to be in the state of grace one must have had original and mortal actual sins forgiven.  That means baptism or the desire for it.  It also means Penance or an act of perfect contrition.  It also implies supernatural faith.  Supernatural faith may be implicit, but that means implicit in something.  That something includes at least the truths that God is, and that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked.  The better theologians also maintain that knowledge of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption are required.  

The Church has condemned the idea that one may hold good hope for anybody who dies not in any way in the Church.  This means that if somebody dies and there are no external signs that they died in the Church, we are not to hold good hope for them.

Nadie is wrong in equating membership in the Church with the dogma that one must die within the Church to be saved.  But he is right in arguing against the notion that there are exceptions to the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church.  There are only the ordinary way of being in the Church, by membership, and the extraordinary way of being within the Church, by desire.

All who die as Jews, Protestants, pagans, etc., go to hell for all eternity.  If somebody who has lived as a Protestant converts on his deathbed and fulfils the conditions of salvation, even if nobody in this world knows about it, he will be saved, because he was brought by grace into the Church before death.  So he is saved because he is in the Church, because he converted before death.  But we are not permitted to speculate that anybody like that converted and was saved, since there is no evidence that he did.  On the contrary, we presume that they died as they lived, and were lost.

I do indeed agree wholeheartedly with what GtG wrote here.

NadieImportante, I'm curious, do you think holding that God may confer baptism as an extraordinary means of the sacrament, to those who desire it illuminated by supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity, is an actual heresy? Surely it is at the least a permissible theological opinion.

Do you think the theologians who held otherwise are even ignorant of the patristic and conciliar Tradition of the Church? Do you believe, then, that Pope Pius IX committed heresy when in his Encyclical he said "those struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion ... are able to attain eternal life through the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."

The Holy Father saw no contradiction at all between this and affirming that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That is because such souls are brought into the bosom of the Church by God Himself unknown to us through extraordinary means and so are not saved outside the Church. Now, the good God is not bound at all to reveal to us the number of such souls nor His hidden ways. The number may be zero, it may be something else. It suffices for us to know the Church teaches this in her official Encyclicals.

God has bound salvation, and thus entrance to the Church, to the sacraments, but He has not bound Himself to confer the fruits of the sacraments i.e. their attendant sanctifying graces, which for baptism involves being made a partaker in the communion of Saints on earth and in heaven, only through His priests and by natural means.

For instance, spiritual communion is an extraordinary means of obtaining the fruits of the Holy Eucharist through desire. Perfect contrition is an extraordinary means of obtaining the fruits of Penance and neither are accounted apart from the sacrament, nor dispense from one's obligations as laid down by the Church.

Now, it seems to me that all Catholics are absolutely free to hold that this never happens in practice. Indeed, that is the safer position, since we cannot know for certain the hidden ways of God, and have no right to suppose that God will provide supernatural means in those instances when it is in our natural power to do otherwise. Thus, we would be in the wrong if we did not proclaim baptism to pagans or return to the Catholic Church to heretics.

It seems to me that the only sentiment you and all those who agree with you express, NadieImportante, that I think is difficult to reconcile with what Pope Pius IX said, is that the God who understands all hearts is in any way bound to give His graces only through ordinary means. I am sure you do not hold this with regard to penance and Holy communion. Why baptism?

Finally, it also seems perfectly permissible as a theological opinion to hold that there are and have never been such souls that match the description of the Holy Father, for like I said their number is hidden and known only to God, and may well be zero, but not to treat this as dogmatically certain, and it is in this sense that Fr.Feeney was reconciled to the Church in my estimation.

Strawmen all over the place. Post sources for your belief. Post my quotes for what you claim I said. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Santo Subito,

Who is the source of what you posted? It looks like it's the personal opinions of an anonymous blogger. What's the difference between him and any other person on CI that posts their personal opinions?

If you cannot establish that the authoritative quotes you cite mean what you say they mean, then they don't demonstrate the validity of your position. Any Feeneyite would have to demonstrate why their basic assumptions are correct, in contradiction to the article I posted, or else their quotations are useless.

Care to take his 4 points one by one?

Read again what was written. If it was one oddball quote, it would not establish something as a dogma. However, in the case of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, the oddball quotes are just 2 possible quotes for salvation of the catechumen. Moreover, there are no quotes in favor of implicit desire, implicit faith, or invincible ignorance, on the contrary there are tons of quotes against them. AND there are all the dogmatic decrees from the Church which confirm the opinions of the Fathers, and not one dogmatic decree in favor of even baptism of desire of the catechumen, let alone all the other liberal variants the teach that no desire for baptism is necessary.

OK, so you do only believe what the Church has solemnly defined.  You do reject the witness of the theologians to the constant, universal, teaching of the Church.  You do treat the dogmatic definitions as a Protestant treats the Holy Scriptures, using private interpretation.

All your opinions with not one source posted.

You refuse to say what a "source" is, but it seems clear that you think they're only dogmatic definitions (and maybe quotes from the Fathers if you happen to agree with them).

Do you accept the following?

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

Condemned proposition: "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.

Where do we find the doctrines "held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions"?  With the greatest facility, in the approved theology works.

AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, I'll give you a page number if you want to look it up.

b. The Authority of Theologians

294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

In regard to their authority the following rules should he admitted:

1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;

2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;

3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.

"Rash" is a censure, not just a criticism.  That is, it is mortally sinful to make a "rash" theological judgement.

Nadie wrote: The more that you write the less that I take you seriously. You make no sense whatsoever. You make erroneuos assumptions and then you answer yourself about them. How do you expect me to take you seriously?
 


Gertrude answers: You refuse to say what a "source" is, but it seems clear that you think they're only dogmatic definitions (and maybe quotes from the Fathers if you happen to agree with them).


Nadie responds again: there you go again making an erroneuos assumption and then answering yourself about it.

I have detailed what Catholic sources are, inumerable times, and I even made  an entire THREAD about the subject! and I know that you've read it innumerable times, no one could miss it. One example is on your very own thread, to which no one responded except me, and that started the thread going. You responded, so you read it!

If people would quote from Catholic authorities like the Church , learned clergy, etc., they would find that they learn more by researching these proofs of what they personally believe to be a "truth", than by continuing to speak or write the same personal opinions (sometimes partially or totally erroneous) over and over.

If you use the Catholic Church to speak for you, and you can't find the Church (Dogma Councils, Popes, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints through it's history) saying what you want to say, but saying the opposite, this should tell you that there is something wrong in what you thought, and tell you to research further before pontificating ones own personal opinions.

One who follows these guidelines will find that they speak and write little, and spend most of their time researching a response to a point of disagreement with another. They will quickly learn that the arguments of their "adversary", will guide them to find the truth. They will find that their "adversary" is actually their best helper. God allows error/heresy for those of good will to research and really learn the truth.

"The tree does not understand the pruning, nor the ground the tilling, but the husbandman knows".

If people would quote from Catholic authorities like the Church , learned clergy, etc.,

Nadie,

I'm asserting that I've read more theology than you, OK.

Now, before I quote any authority, I want to know that it isn't a waste of time.  It will be a waste of time if you think that if I quote, for example, Tanquerey, you consider that a quote from St. Augustine neutralises it.

Tanquerey read Augustine too.  So his doctrine is more likely right, whereas Augustine-interpreted-by-nadie is is likely to be wrong.

Luther loved quoting St. Augustine.  Unfortunately for Luther, he didn't know how to read him.

I'm not playing ping-pong with theology quotes.

Do you accept the doctrine of Tanquerey (relying on Tuas libenter of Pius IX) regarding how we are determine, from the theologians, what is obligatory doctrine for Catholics, and what is not?