Author Topic: Just to be Clear (Read 3205 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #20 on:** September 19, 2014, 02:25:39 PM »

Just so you know the direct quote in the OP is verbatim from Monsignor Fenton's THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SALVATION, the very end of chapter seven. I will quote what immediately precedes the OP quote from Fenton below. To substantiate. This can be verified or refuted by anyone who has the book:

Quote

When the desire is merely implicit, then a man’s faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit. The point made here by the Holy Office letter is precisely that there must be some definite and explicit content to any act of genuine supernatural faith. If a man is to be saved, he must accept as true, on the authority of God revealing, the teaching which God has communicated to the world as His public and supernatural message.

   The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:

   (1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.
   (2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church’s magisterium.
   (3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church’s magisterium understands and explains it.
   (4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.
   (5) Because the Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept, any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation.
   (6) The Church is a general and necessary means for salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God’s own institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such.
   (7) In order that a man may be saved “within” the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved.
   (8) It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit.
   (9) The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion.
   (10) No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity.

Like I said. Please stop calling Fenton a Pelagian.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** September 19, 2014, 07:04:17 PM »

Link.

Stubborn · « **Reply #22 on:** September 20, 2014, 05:59:54 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.

Any time you see this as a part of an explanation of the dogma EENS, you know error is right at the door step.

Since V1, #3 should repeat the words of the First Vatican Council, which decrees:

"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

So your number 3, per V1 should say:

3) The dogma must be understood as declared, because per V1, this is the way the Church understands it and this is how the Church has defined it.

What you promote, what Fr. Fenton promote is the abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

How is it that you have allowed yourself to be so blinded? - I believe it is due to your constant public adulteration of the dogma under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding and your constant public corruption of the Church's teaching on the necessity of the reception of the sacrament of baptism for every human being unto salvation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** September 22, 2014, 10:09:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Link.

It is in a book. Something people used to read before internet. They can be found in libraries and various other places. This can be easily verified. Does anyone else have the book by Fenton, written in 1958 so Ladislaus will no longer think I pulled that stuff out of my hat. He gives me more credit I serve crediting with a ten point list directly from Fenton.

Just so you know the direct quote in the OP is verbatim from Monsignor Fenton's THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SALVATION, the very end of chapter seven.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** September 22, 2014, 12:42:18 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Link.

It is in a book. Something people used to read before internet. They can be found in libraries and various other places. This can be easily verified. Does anyone else have the book by Fenton, written in 1958 so Ladislaus will no longer think I pulled that stuff out of my hat. He gives me more credit I serve crediting with a ten point list directly from Fenton.

Just so you know the direct quote in the OP is verbatim from Monsignor Fenton's THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SALVATION, the very end of chapter seven.

I found this cited in one place on the internet, and it was clearly a third party summary of what Fenton actually wrote, and it wouldn't be the first time you combined your own thinking with that of Fenton and claimed that it was his.

Regardless, if Fenton did write it, then Fenton too fell into Pelagianism. He felt the need to accept and justify the Pelegian-heretical Suprema Haec, and so he ended up rationalizing Pelagianism instead of standing up for the truth. In the end, Fenton caved on Vatican II, claiming that Catholic ecclesiology had not been changed but, rather, improved by Vatican II.