Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 23, 2013, 01:48:14 PM
-
"In the second section of the dogmatic, the Mystici Corporis speaks of the two types of bonds or communications by which men are joined to Christ within the Church. Those men who are united to our Lord by professing His faith, being subject to the legitimate spiritual rulers He has set over His sheepfold, and partaking in the Eucharistic worship which He instituted, are said to be joined in bodily and visible communication with Christ. The second type of communication is spiritual and invisible. It consists in the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Our union with Christ is perfected by God the Holy Ghost dwelling within us. It is expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is pre-eminently the Act of the Mystical Body. (Fenton)
-
"In the light of the actual text of the Mystici Corporis the charge made against the school theology would seem to be groundless. The various elements which are brought together in the Encyclical's dogmatic section have all been considered in the standard literature of sacred theology since the Middle Ages. Moreover, several of the theses used by the Holy Father have been developed in the school theology since the controversies against the early Protestants. Fenton
Anything wrong with the above quote?
-
Anything wrong with the above quote?
I don't know, since it does not spell out anything. What in detail is he saying to you?
-
He says it in relation to the previous quote at the top of the thread and what follows:
"There is certainly no ground for saying that the thesis on the visibility of the Catholic Church has been neglected since the Middle Ages. These conclusions received their scientific development at the hands of the Controversialists. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1579) felt called upon to refute the objections of Brentius by proving that our Lord Himself, and not Peter Soto (1563), was ultimately responsible for this thesis.
He is defending the Church against the accusation that it neglected the thesis on the visibility of the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages.
The two most recent quoted are not directly related to whether water baptism is necessary in all instances without exception for salvation to be possible so you can state that you do not see anything wrong with the quote without fear of having your position undermined.
-
Why quote something that needs an explanation? There must be a Father, Saint or Doctor in Church history that said clearly and without needing explanations whatever Fenton wants to say. Either Fenton was just not a good communicator (which I doubt), or he was controlled by the narrow the tightrope he had to walk to keep his position, his job.
Your quotes sound like any writing of JPII.
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”
Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical Body”! Therefore, only the members are in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”
Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical Body”! Therefore, only the members are in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
Yep!
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”
Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical Body”! Therefore, only the members are in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
Show me the exact quote that is "wrong" and explain why it is "wrong".
Taken in context it is clear what Pope Pius XII teaches and means. Taking quotes out of context is what the Protestants do. You are going to be forced to do what the other dishonest, ignorant and or evil feeneyites do when they say "he contradicts himself", in the same docuмent no less. Which shows either your bad will or your inability to understand his teaching.
We are about get Fenton's teaching on Mystici Corporis. It is VERY presumptuous for anyone, to dare to publicly say such a thing about the Monsignor especially one untrained in theology. It is something you might want to confess. It is quite easy to say someone is wrong when you have no idea what you are talking about.
"Although earlier theologians commonly taught that our Lord was the Founder of the Church, this portion of theology did not begin to have anything like its present theological development until around the end of the seventeenth century. The post-mediaeval school theologians dealt with our Lord's function as the head and the support of the Mystical Body, not only in the treatise De Ecclesia Christi but also in various parts of the section De Verbo Incarnato. The concept of the Church as the Mystical Body was never absent from the school theology. It is found quite well developed in the Summa de Ecclesia of the Cardinal John de Turrecremata (1468), one of the first great theologians after the Middle Ages. It was the turning point of the most important controversies in ecclesiology from his time to our own. Fenton
Have you read "De Ecclesia Christi" and "De Verbo Incarnato"?
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”
Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical Body”! Therefore, only the members are in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
Show me the exact quote that is "wrong" and explain why it is "wrong".
Taken in context it is clear what Pope Pius XII teaches and means. Taking quotes out of context is what the Protestants do. You are going to be forced to do what the other dishonest, ignorant and or evil feeneyites do when they say "he contradicts himself", in the same docuмent no less. Which shows either your bad will or your inability to understand his teaching.
We are about get Fenton's teaching on Mystici Corporis. It is VERY presumptuous for anyone, to dare to publicly say such a thing about the Monsignor especially one untrained in theology. It is something you might want to confess. It is quite easy to say someone is wrong when you have no idea what you are talking about.
"Although earlier theologians commonly taught that our Lord was the Founder of the Church, this portion of theology did not begin to have anything like its present theological development until around the end of the seventeenth century. The post-mediaeval school theologians dealt with our Lord's function as the head and the support of the Mystical Body, not only in the treatise De Ecclesia Christi but also in various parts of the section De Verbo Incarnato. The concept of the Church as the Mystical Body was never absent from the school theology. It is found quite well developed in the Summa de Ecclesia of the Cardinal John de Turrecremata (1468), one of the first great theologians after the Middle Ages. It was the turning point of the most important controversies in ecclesiology from his time to our own. Fenton
Have you read "De Ecclesia Christi" and "De Verbo Incarnato"?
Why quote something that needs an explanation? There must be a Father, Saint or Doctor in Church history that said clearly and without needing explanations whatever Fenton wants to say. Either Fenton was just not a good communicator (which I doubt), or he was controlled by the narrow the tightrope he had to walk to keep his position, his job.
Your quotes sound like any writing of JPII.
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.
Saying the quotes of Fenton sound like JP2 is the height of blasphemy. You need to go to Confession. You are in the category of people that cannot be rationalized with and you do this Catholic site no service.
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.
Saying the quotes of Fenton sound like JP2 is the height of blasphemy. You need to go to Confession. You are in the category of people that cannot be rationalized with and you do this Catholic site no service.
Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church". He did that because he could not go against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corpuros a few years before his article. Then Fenton proceeded to teach the same thing in a way that could get around (as he thought) Mystici Corporus. Fr. Fenton like St. Robert Bellarmine and all those that attempted to explain how the unbaptized are "somehow" in the Church, was attempting to explain a contradiction, and he just replaced one obsolete error (the Soul of the Church theory) with another.
Anyhow, Fr. Fenton believed as St. Thomas, and rejected the teaching of the Salamances, that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Therefore, the point of using Fr. Fenton to teach the "within thing", is hypocricy, since you believe as the Salamances that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You reject Fr. Fenton.
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.
Saying the quotes of Fenton sound like JP2 is the height of blasphemy. You need to go to Confession. You are in the category of people that cannot be rationalized with and you do this Catholic site no service.
Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church". He did that because he could not go against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corpuros a few years before his article. Then Fenton proceeded to teach the same thing in a way that could get around (as he thought) Mystici Corporus. Fr. Fenton like St. Robert Bellarmine and all those that attempted to explain how the unbaptized are "somehow" in the Church, was attempting to explain a contradiction, and he just replaced one obsolete error (the Soul of the Church theory) with another.
Anyhow, Fr. Fenton believed as St. Thomas, and rejected the teaching of the Salamances, that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Therefore, the point of using Fr. Fenton to teach the "within thing", is hypocricy, since you believe as the Salamances that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You reject Fr. Fenton.
"Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church"." bowler, where did you read this, precisely?
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.
Saying the quotes of Fenton sound like JP2 is the height of blasphemy. You need to go to Confession. You are in the category of people that cannot be rationalized with and you do this Catholic site no service.
Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church". He did that because he could not go against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corpuros a few years before his article. Then Fenton proceeded to teach the same thing in a way that could get around (as he thought) Mystici Corporus. Fr. Fenton like St. Robert Bellarmine and all those that attempted to explain how the unbaptized are "somehow" in the Church, was attempting to explain a contradiction, and he just replaced one obsolete error (the Soul of the Church theory) with another.
Anyhow, Fr. Fenton believed as St. Thomas, and rejected the teaching of the Salamances, that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Therefore, the point of using Fr. Fenton to teach the "within thing", is hypocricy, since you believe as the Salamances that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You reject Fr. Fenton.
"Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church"." bowler, where did you read this, precisely?
:facepalm: Father Fenton defends Saint Robert Bellarmine's explanation throughout the book, next objection please.
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.
Saying the quotes of Fenton sound like JP2 is the height of blasphemy. You need to go to Confession. You are in the category of people that cannot be rationalized with and you do this Catholic site no service.
Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church". He did that because he could not go against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis a few years before his article. Then Fenton proceeded to teach the same thing in a way that could get around (as he thought) Mystici Corporis. Fr. Fenton like St. Robert Bellarmine and all those that attempted to explain how the unbaptized are "somehow" in the Church, was attempting to explain a contradiction, and he just replaced one obsolete error (the Soul of the Church theory) with another.
Anyhow, Fr. Fenton believed as St. Thomas, and rejected the teaching of the Salamances, that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Therefore, the point of using Fr. Fenton to teach the "within thing", is hypocricy, since you believe as the Salamances that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You reject Fr. Fenton.
Fr. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958,
page 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
Page 173-174: “Yet, despite the perfection of St. Robert’s teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante was destined to be a source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians. The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert’s use of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘body’ with reference to the Church.”
page 179: “It is one of the ironical twists in history that St. Robert, pre-eminent among the writers of the Catholic Church for the clarity of his expression, should have offered the occasion for such serious misunderstanding.”
Page 181: “The misuse of St. Robert’s terminology went a step farther at the beginning of the eighteenth century in a well-written manual Elementa theologica written by the Sorbonne professor, Charles du Plessis d’Argentre.”
-
"The teaching on the double bond of union with Christ within the Catholic Church was developed by Catholic controversialists and school theologians from John Driedo (1535) and James Latomus (1546) to St. Robert Bellarmine (1621). The doctrine on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was found in treatises De Missionibus Divinis. The various tracts De Eucharistia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio brought out the truth that the Mass is the Act of the Mystical Body.
Bowler have you read, let alone understood John Driedo, James Latomus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missionibus Divinis, De Echaristia, De Sacrificio and De Sacerdotio as Monsignor Fenton has? Didn't think so.
Fenton was controlled by nobody, he was not a respecter of persons, just the truth. That is what he knew that is what he taught, bring proof for your unsubstantiated, false and calumnious claims.
Saying the quotes of Fenton sound like JP2 is the height of blasphemy. You need to go to Confession. You are in the category of people that cannot be rationalized with and you do this Catholic site no service.
Fr. Fenton taught that Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong in his explanation about the "Soul of the Church". He did that because he could not go against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis a few years before his article. Then Fenton proceeded to teach the same thing in a way that could get around (as he thought) Mystici Corporis. Fr. Fenton like St. Robert Bellarmine and all those that attempted to explain how the unbaptized are "somehow" in the Church, was attempting to explain a contradiction, and he just replaced one obsolete error (the Soul of the Church theory) with another.
Anyhow, Fr. Fenton believed as St. Thomas, and rejected the teaching of the Salamances, that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Therefore, the point of using Fr. Fenton to teach the "within thing", is hypocricy, since you believe as the Salamances that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You reject Fr. Fenton.
Fr. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958,
page 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
Page 173-174: “Yet, despite the perfection of St. Robert’s teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante was destined to be a source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians. The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert’s use of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘body’ with reference to the Church.”
page 179: “It is one of the ironical twists in history that St. Robert, pre-eminent among the writers of the Catholic Church for the clarity of his expression, should have offered the occasion for such serious misunderstanding.”
Page 181: “The misuse of St. Robert’s terminology went a step farther at the beginning of the eighteenth century in a well-written manual Elementa theologica written by the Sorbonne professor, Charles du Plessis d’Argentre.”
He did not teach that he was wrong but that he was misinterpreted. I have posted the chapter several times that speaks to the issue. Does anyone read it?
-
Bowler, Do you carefully read in a studious way or do you read it like you would read the sports section? If you are reading the book there must be some sincerity in you.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jul/jul17ftt.htm
This chapter in Monsignor Fenton claims the opposite on Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching that you claim he makes.
-
Page 173-174: “Yet, despite the perfection of St. Robert’s teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante was destined to be a source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians. The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert’s use of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘body’ with reference to the Church.”
page 179: “It is one of the ironical twists in history that St. Robert, pre-eminent among the writers of the Catholic Church for the clarity of his expression, should have offered the occasion for such serious misunderstanding.”
Page 181: “The misuse of St. Robert’s terminology went a step farther at the beginning of the eighteenth century in a well-written manual Elementa theologica written by the Sorbonne professor, Charles du Plessis d’Argentre.”
He's not disagreeing with Bellarmine or saying he was wrong, he's saying Bellarmine's use of the terms body and soul were misunderstood in later times.
-
One of the most tragic, yet in some ways comical, stories recounted in the history of theology has to do with a highly important misunderstanding of the teaching set forth by St. Robert himself in the most important of his writings, the book De ecclesia militante. This misunderstanding had most unfortunate consequences in the teaching about the necessity of the Church for the attainment of salvation.
St. Robert's De ecclesia militante is essentially devoted to the defense of one thesis: the truth that God's true and only ecclesia of the New Testament is an organized and visible social unit. This thesis is presented in the second chapter of the book, and all the rest of the work is devoted to a detailed and classically effective demonstration of this truth. It will be impossible to understand how St. Robert's teaching was misinterpreted without a knowledge of what he actually said in that second chapter.
The first part of this chapter "On the Definition of the Church" is devoted to the description and the refutation of the various theories evolved by heretics to explain the composition of the true Church militant of the New Testament. St. Robert deals with five of these theories, and then sets forth his own teaching, which is true Catholic doctrine. This is the pertinent section of the second chapter.
But it is our teaching that there is only one ecclesia, and not two, and that this one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth. From this definition it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition; the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.
By reason of the first part all infidels, both those who have never been in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans; and those who have been in it and have left it, as heretics and apostates, are excluded. By reason of the second part catechumens and excommunicated persons are excluded, because the former are not yet admitted to the communion of the sacraments, while the latter have been sent away from it. By reason of the third part there are excluded the schismatics who have the faith and the sacraments, but who are not subject to the legitimate pastor and who thus profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [of the Church]. All others are included [within the Church in the light of the definition] even though they be reprobates, sinful and impious men.
Now there is this difference between our teaching and all the others [the "definitions" offered by the various heretics, and discussed in the first section of this second chapter of the De ecclesia militante], that all the others require internal virtues to constitute a man "within" the Church, and hence make the true Church invisible. But, despite the fact that we believe that all the virtues, faith, hope, charity, and the rest, are to be found within the Church, we do not think that any internal virtue is required to bring it about that a man can be said absolutely to be a part of the true Church of which the Scriptures speak, but [that what is required for this] is only the outward profession of the faith and the communion of the sacraments, which are perceptible by the senses. For the Church is as visible and palpable an assembly of men as the assembly of the Roman people or the Kingdom of France or the Republic of the Venetians.
We must note what Augustine says in his Breviculus collationis, where he is dealing with the conference of the third day, that the Church is a living body, in which there is a soul and a body. And the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity, and the rest are the soul. The external profession of the faith and the communication of the sacraments are the body. Hence it is that some are of the soul and of the body of the Church, and hence joined both inwardly and outwardly to Christ the Head, and such people are most perfectly within the Church. They are, as it were, living members in the body, although some of them share in this life to a greater extent, and others to a lesser extent, while still others have only the beginning of life and, as it were, sensation without movement, like the people who have only faith without charity.
Again, some are of the soul and not of the body, as catechumens and excommunicated persons if they have faith and charity, as they can have them.
And, finally, some are of the body and not of the soul, as those who have no internal virtue, but who still by reason of some temporal hope or fear, profess the faith and communicate in the sacraments under the rule of the pastors. And such individuals are like hairs or fingernails or evil liquids in a human body.
Consequently, our definition takes in only this last way of being in the Church, because this is required as a minimum in order that a man may be said to be a part of the visible Church. [De ecclesia militante, c. 2.]
In the passage just quoted, St. Robert Bellarmine sets out to explain and to define the thesis he is going to defend and explain throughout the rest of the book De ecclesia militante. The outstanding talent of this great Doctor of the Church is precisely his power of forceful and clear exposition. In the section we have just cited, that talent was exercised as perfectly as it is in any section of his works.
St. Robert contends that the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia spoken of in the Scriptures, has been constituted by God as a society composed of members or parts whose appurtenance [going with and belonging - J.G.] to this company is manifest to all men. He asserts that the factors by which a man is constituted as a member or a part of this company are the profession of the true Christian faith, access to the sacraments, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff. The group which is God's one and only ecclesia in this world is actually the company of men who have these factors of unity.
He acknowledges the presence within the Church of faith, hope, charity, and the other supernatural virtues. Furthermore he realizes that these infused virtues themselves constitute another bond of unity with Our Lord and among His disciples. Nevertheless he insists that this spiritual or inward bond of unity is not the factor which constitutes a man as a part or a member of the Church militant of the New Testament.
Yet despite the perfection of St. Robert's teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante was destined to be the source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians. The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post-Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert's use of the terms "soul" and "body" with reference to the Church.
Can you grant me the point just one time? Have I clarified that Father Fenton did not say Bellarmine erred in his teaching?
The problem was the terminology that he used was misuesed by future theologians and what I will post in the following post regarding his reference to Augustine. The problem was not him erring but the misunderstanding of his work.
Bellarmine, Fenton and the Catholic Church are in 100% agreement on the issue.
-
It does not surprise me that you do not see it. What did you need for Fenton to say, that Bellarmine did not know what he was talking about?
If you do not believe the clear dogma as it is written, how on earth can I expect you to believe anything that is written?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
One thing is for certain, Fr. Fenton's theory is acknowledging the dogma that to be a member of the Body, one must be sacramentally baptized. He is just trying to reconcile that with the baptism of desire of St. Thomas. He is trying like all the others before him, to reconcile the unreconcilable. Doesn't it surprise you that it took till 1957 for the Church "to learn the truth" from a Fr. Fenton? No.
-
In the first place, St. Robert's reference to St. Augustine's Breviculus collationis is lamentably inexact. There is no such statement as "the Church is a living body, in which there is a soul and a body" to be found in any part of the Breviculus collationis. In a subsequent chapter of the De ecclesia militante, St. Robert again attributes this soul-body dichotomy to this particular book by St. Augustine, and there he indicates the sentence to which he obviously refers here as well as in the later chapter. In the ninth chapter of the De ecclesia militante we find the following passage.
Because of these sources [a citation from one of St. Augustine's works and references to other statements made by him] not only Brenz and Calvin, but even some Catholics imagine that there are two Churches, but this is only imagination. For neither the Scriptures nor Augustine ever indicate two Churches, but they always speak of only one. Now, in the Breviculus collationis, in the account of the conference of the third day, when the Donatists were urging against the Catholics the calumny that the Catholics taught that there are two Churches, one containing only the good, and another containing good people along with evil individuals; the Catholics retorted that they had never dreamed that there were two Churches, but that they had only distinguished two parts or periods of the Church. There are parts, because good people belong to the Church in one way, and bad people in another. For the good people are the interior part and, as it were, the soul of the Church. The bad people are the outward part and, as it were, the body [of the Church]. And they gave the example of the inward and the outward man, who are not two men, but two parts of the same man.
Distinguishing the periods of the Church, they say that the Church exists in one way now, and that it will exist in a different way after the resurrection. For now it has both good and evil [members]. Then it will have only the good. And they gave as an example Christ, who, although always the same, was mortal and subject to suffering prior to His resurrection but, after it, is immortal and not subject to suffering. [Ibid., c. 9.]
With this passage from the ninth chapter of the De ecclesia militante before us, it is quite easy to find the passage of the Breviculus collationis to which St. Robert appealed to justify his use of the expression "body of the Church" and "soul of the Church." Here is the actual teaching of the Breviculus collationis.
They [the Catholics] did not say that this Church which now has evil members interspersed within it is distinct from the kingdom of God, where there will be no evil members; but [they said] that the Church exists in one way now, and is going to exist in another way in the future. Now it has evil men mingled within it. Then it will not have them. Likewise now it is mortal, in that it is made up of mortal men. Then it will be immortal in that no one within it will die even a bodily death. In the same way there are not two Christ's just because He first died and afterwards was immortal. And they also spoke of the outward and the inward man, who, although they are different, still cannot be said to be two men. There is even less reason to say that there are two Churches, since these very same good persons who now suffer the evil men mingled among them and die as people who are going to rise again are the ones who then will have no evil members mingled with them and will be completely immortal. [St. Augustine, Breviculus collationis cuм Donatistis, coll. 3, c. 10, n. 20. MPL, XLIII, 635.]
In this passage the word "soul" does not occur at all. The word "body" is found once, but with a meaning completely different from any it might have when employed in the expression "body of the Church." In this section of the Breviculus collationis the word is used in a clause explaining that the Church triumphant is called immortal "quod in ea nullus esset vel corpore moriturus." St. Augustine has used the word in explaining the Catholic teaching that the Church triumphant is truly immortal because none of its members will be subject to the spiritual death of sin or even to bodily death.
It would, of course, be grossly inaccurate to say that St. Robert misquoted the Breviculus collationis. He was a man of his own time and, in line with the customs of the period in which he lived, he referred to older writings in a way that would be considered quite unacceptable according to the stricter standards of modern scholarship. The teaching he attributed to this section of the Breviculus collationis is actually to be found in that docuмent, at least in an implicit manner. But St. Robert couched that teaching in his own terminology and, without quoting his docuмent verbatim, wrote as though his own terminology as well as the truths expressed in that terminology were to be found in the original source.
St. Robert obviously was fond of employing the "body" and "soul" dichotomy to explain and illustrate various distinctions within the Church. In the two passages quoted from the De ecclesia militante in this book, we find the term "body" used with reference to the Church in three ways, and the word "soul" in two. He speaks of the Church itself as "a living body." Despite the fact that this terminology is not found in the Breviculus collationis, as St. Robert's manner of speaking would imply that it was, it is a standard expression used to describe the Church of God. Basically, of course, it is the name of the Church employed in the epistles of St. Paul. The Church is such that it can accurately be designated under the metaphor of a living body, the body of Christ.
In the very same sentence in which he speaks of the Church as "a living body," St. Robert states that "there is a soul and a body" within the Church. This "body" in the Church is described as consisting in "the external profession of the faith and the communication of the sacraments." The "soul" within the Church, according to the De ecclesia militante, is constituted by "the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity, and the rest."
He then goes on to explain the function of the "body" and the "soul" that he has described as existing within the living body that is the true Church. He tells us that "some are of the soul and of the body of the Church, and hence joined both inwardly and outwardly to Christ, the Head." In other words, in this second chapter of the De ecclesia militante, "soul" and "body" are metaphorical names applied to two distinct sets of forces or factors that function as bonds of unity within the Church militant of the New Testament. A person who is what St. Robert calls "de corpore ecclesiae" is one united to Our Lord in His Mystical Body by the profession of the true faith, access to the sacraments, and subjection to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. The individual who is "de anima ecclesiae" is joined to Our Lord in His Church by all "the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost," or at least by genuine divine faith.
St. Robert was not by any means the first of the Counter-Reformation theologians to incorporate an explanation of these two factors or bonds of unity within the Church into his defense of the Catholic position. Some teaching along this line had always been a necessary part of the defense of Catholic truth against opponents who claimed that the true supernatural kingdom of God of the New Testament was not an organized society at all, but was merely the entire group of men and women in the state of grace. St. Augustine had faced a similar problem in his controversy against the Donatists, and his writings were freely used by the Catholic writers who defended the Church against the Protestant polemicists.
Two of the earlier Counter-Reformation theologians, John Driedo and James Latomus, both professors at Louvain, prepared the way for St. Robert by their work in describing these two bonds of unity within the true Church. Driedo spoke of them in this passage from his famous work, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus.
Augustine teaches in the seventh book [On Baptism] against the Donatists that there are two ways of being in the House of God or in the Church. One way is to be in it as a member in the body of justice, that is, as one sharing in the spiritual life or joined with the other members in the spirit of charity. The other way to be in the House of God, or in the Church, is to be attached to the other members as the chaff is to the grain. [Driedo, De eccelsiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (Louvain, 1530), IV, c. 2, p. 517.]
Driedo goes on to explain that people must be considered to be in the Church or, as we would say today, to be members of the Church if four conditions are fulfilled. The members are those who are "visibly attached to the Church by the sacrament of faith," living peaceably with the Christian people, not having been expelled from the Church, and not having left it. His teaching on this point is exactly what St. Robert was to give in his De ecclesia militante half a century later.
The outward or visible bond of unity within the Church, the reality to which St. Robert attached the name "body of the Church," is described by Driedo as a joining "according to a kind of visible form of the Christian faith." What St. Robert called "the soul of the Church" appears in the De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus as "the unity of the spirit and the bond (vinculum) of charity." Catholics in the state of mortal sin remain joined to the Church in a bodily way (corporaliter), although they are inwardly separated from it.
James Latomus refers to these two bonds of union within the Church as the bodily communication and the spiritual communication.
All ecclesiastical communication is either bodily or spiritual. The spiritual communication belongs to those who are in the house as composing the house itself. This is the communication of those who possess charity and who are united to the one God and among themselves. Likewise this spiritual communication pertains to those who are in the house, but who are not parts of the house itself. These are still spiritually joined to the parts of the house; and, on the other hand, the parts of the house are joined to them in Catholic peace. Although this Catholic peace is the effect of charity, its extension is far greater than that of charity, and it is found in some persons in whom charity does not exist. I mean charity of a pure heart, through which the Holy Ghost dwells in a man's heart. Through this union the bad Catholic shares even spiritually in many gifts which the heretic and the schismatic do not share. The bad Catholic is deprived of these gifts when he is justly excommunicated and delivered over to Satan.
Likewise the bodily communication is divided. There is a certain bodily communication according to place, and in a common life, and in the active and passive communication of the visible sacraments. There is another bodily communication of superior and subject. [Latomus, in his Ad Oecolampadium responsio, in the Opera (Louvain, 1550), 131.]
In the field of ecclesiology it is St. Robert Bellarmine's special glory that he clarified and perfected the teachings of Latomus and of Driedo on this particular section of the treatise on the Church, and used this teaching as the key to his classical definition of the Church in terms of its membership. What turned out to be quite unfortunate for the understanding of St. Robert's teaching by subsequent theologians was his application of the terms "body" and "soul" to the two bonds of union within the Church which had been recognized and described by his predecessors.
It is one of the ironical twists of history that St. Robert, pre-eminent among the writers of the Catholic Church for the clarity of his expression, should have offered the occasion for such serious misunderstanding. There can be no doubt whatsoever about the magnitude of his accomplishment in the line of clarity in his exposition of the two bonds of ecclesiastical unity. In effect, Latomus and Driedo had taught in what would be regarded today as a highly esoteric [understood by only a few - J.G.] fashion. Their theses were couched in the words and phrases of St. Augustine, and a man would have to be fairly well aware of what St. Augustine had written, particularly in his controversial writings against the Donatists and in his In epistulam Ioannis ad Parthos in order to understand the full import of what either Latomus or Driedo had written. St. Robert, on the contrary, wrote effectively and clearly so that anyone capable of reading Latin would have no difficulty in grasping what he had to say.
It would have been easier for him and much more profitable for subsequent theologians if he had simply named the two bonds of unity in the Church for what they actually are. His brilliant younger contemporary, Francis Sylvius of Douai, did exactly that. Sylvius spoke of a twofold colligation within the Church militant of the New Testament. He stated that: "One is internal, of minds, through faith and through the common affection which is called in the Second Epistle of St. Peter the 'love of the brotherhood (amor fraternitatis).'" And explained that "the other bond of union is external, consisting in the administration and the reception of the sacraments and in other matters pertaining to the worship of God and to the administration of the Church." [Sylvius, Controversiarum Liber Tertius, in his Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 237.]
Obviously Sylvius, like many of his contemporaries, did not agree with St. Robert in his concept of membership in the Church. The Douai theologian was mistaken on this point, but he was much more felicitous [well-suited - J.G.] than St. Robert had been in designating the factors which unite men with Our Lord and to each other in God's supernatural kingdom on earth. Fenton
__________
Saint Robert did not quote Augustine exactly but Saint Robert did not teach error. His way of summing up what Augustine taught as if quoting him was common then as Monsignor Fenton explains for those who took the trouble to read the above.
-
It does not surprise me that you do not see it. What did you need for Fenton to say, that Bellarmine did not know what he was talking about?
If you do not believe the clear dogma as it is written, how on earth can I expect you to believe anything that is written?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
One thing is for certain, Fr. Fenton's theory is acknowledging the dogma that to be a member of the Body, one must be sacramentally baptized. He is just trying to reconcile that with the baptism of desire of St. Thomas. He is trying like all the others before him, to reconcile the unreconcilable. Doesn't it surprise you that it took till 1957 for the Church "to learn the truth" from a Fr. Fenton? No.
-
It does not surprise me that you do not see it. What did you need for Fenton to say, that Bellarmine did not know what he was talking about?
If you do not believe the clear dogma as it is written, how on earth can I expect you to believe anything that is written?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
One thing is for certain, Fr. Fenton's theory is acknowledging the dogma that to be a member of the Body, one must be sacramentally baptized. He is just trying to reconcile that with the baptism of desire of St. Thomas. He is trying like all the others before him, to reconcile the unreconcilable. Doesn't it surprise you that it took till 1957 for the Church "to learn the truth" from a Fr. Fenton? No.
Luckily I don't engage in personal insults otherwise I would say you are out of your mind.
-
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined [doesn't say "become members"to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Are you ready to read the chapter from this by Fenton?
-
One thing is for certain, Fr. Fenton's theory is acknowledging the dogma that to be a member of the Body, one must be sacramentally baptized.
He is just trying to reconcile that with the baptism of desire of St. Thomas.
You are one of those that claim to know the inner workings of Fenton's mind?
He is trying like all the others before him, to reconcile the unreconcilable. Doesn't it surprise you that it took till 1957 for the Church "to learn the truth" from a Fr. Fenton? No.
He has read (and unlike you, understood) the entire body of teaching on salvation theology and helped put it together. When was the Immaculate Conception Defined. the Church was busy dealing with the Protestant Revolt before dealing with an objection that the Protestants did not bring up.
You keep missing the obvious. It would seem that is a result of bad will, being more sure of yourself than ANYONE else. I don't even think Jesus Christ Himself could convince you.
-
Problem is that the quote in Cantate Domino was directly taken from a book called To Peter on the Faith written by Saint Fulgentius (who died in 533 AD):
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."
In that very same book, Saint Fulgentius also states the following:
“Hold most firmly and never doubt that, with the exception of those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who has not been converted from his sins through penance and faith, and freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, i.e. through baptism.” (On the Faith to Peter, 43, 73)
The Fathers at the Council of Florence would have never quoted from a book which contains outright heresy if "Baptism of Blood" (hence, "Baptism of Desire via Perfect Charity") was not a constant teaching of the universal Catholic Church. Likewise, no one whatsoever ever accused Saint Fulgentius of teaching, promulgating and/or holding to heretical ideas and/or erroneous opinions. Contrast this with Pope Honorius I who lived in the next century.
Remember, the Council of Florence, while at Basel, also stated the following:
By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
So, it is just silly to say that the Council of Florence was contradicting the "teachers in the theological schools," all of whom were teaching Baptism of Desire and/or Blood.
-
One thing is for certain, Fr. Fenton's theory is acknowledging the dogma that to be a member of the Body, one must be sacramentally baptized.
He is just trying to reconcile that with the baptism of desire of St. Thomas.
You are one of those that claim to know the inner workings of Fenton's mind?
What is there to know? If they were members of the ecclesial body, there would be no need for Fr. Fenton's or St. Robert Bellarmine's dissertations.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
-
Bowler,
I hope that you reply to my post. I think that you, I, and others are free to hold to the opinion of Saint Augustine which you have in your signature, but we are not "free" to condemn BoD/BoB, which was universally taught by all the Doctors of the Church, at least in some form (namely, "Baptism of Blood" which is simply "Baptism of Desire with Perfect Charity.")
-
Bowler wrote:
Therefore, the point of using Fr. Fenton to teach the "within thing", is hypocricy, since you believe as the Salamances that the unbaptized can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You reject Fr. Fenton.
You conveniently skipped this part. You are a hypocrite to use Fenton in your straining of a gnat, when you reject him in your swallowing the camel of the Salamances.
-
One thing is for certain, Fr. Fenton's theory is acknowledging the dogma that to be a member of the Body, one must be sacramentally baptized.
He is just trying to reconcile that with the baptism of desire of St. Thomas.
You are one of those that claim to know the inner workings of Fenton's mind?
What is there to know? If they were members of the ecclesial body, there would be no need for Fr. Fenton's or St. Robert Bellarmine's dissertations.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
I have no idea what you are trying to say which is probably good.
-
This answers your question bowler as to why "it took until 1957 to 'get it right'"
They explained it more clearly is what actually happened:
Quote:
"The writers of school theology from the fifteenth century to the nineteenth are not guilty of neglecting the teaching on the Mystical Body simply because this section of sacred doctrine has been developed in our own times. They knew and explained the theology of the Mystical Body even though they did not write the complete twentieth century type of treatise on this subject. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and the older school theologians were quite well aware of the fact. The theology of the Mystical Body is that portion of sacred doctrine in which we find the scientific exposition of the revealed message about the connection of the Catholic Church with our Lord. The school theologians knew and taught the theology of the Mystical body. A complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body is one in which all the theological elements pertinent to the Church's union with our Lord are brought together and compared, for the sake of a still more perfect and profound understanding of the mystery. The complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body is one of the glories of our own day. It would be naïve in the extreme to blame earlier theologians for not having done what has been distinctively a twentieth century work. Fenton
Monsignor Fenton has read all the theological elements pertinent to the Church's union with our Lord have you?
The Monsignor fully understood the complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body, you do not. Why do you dare claim he does not know what he is talking about as you suggest when you tell us all that he erred on this issue?
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…
Show me the exact quote that is "wrong" and explain why it is "wrong".
Fenton said non-members can be inside the Catholic Church. correct?
This is wrong because the Catholic Church never taught this, can you show me where the Church has taught this?
You must quote from the Traditional Catholic Magisterium to back up his claim. He also asserts the blatant falsehood that the Church’s Magisterium has declared that salvation can be and has been attained by persons who were not members of the Church. This is simply not true.
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…
Show me the exact quote that is "wrong" and explain why it is "wrong".
Fenton said non-members can be inside the Catholic Church. correct?
This is wrong because the Catholic Church never taught this, can you show me where the Church has taught this?
You are right gooch - not only has the Church NEVER taught this, this contradicts what the Church has always taught.
You must quote from the Traditional Catholic Magisterium to back up his claim. He also asserts the blatant falsehood that the Church’s Magisterium has declared that salvation can be and has been attained by persons who were not members of the Church. This is simply not true.
The problem is that those who deny the fundamental dogma (while insisting they are doing no such thing) will quote everyone and anyone under the sun rather than quote the definitions of the Church's Magisterium.
For example, we will never see a BOBer quote Pope Eugene IV's infallible teaching: ".....that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Rather they make all sorts of wild claims about why the pope did not mean what he said, or that there are inherent exceptions in an infallible teaching which need to be explained by learned theologians.
But somehow, some way, they deny the fact that by the time the theologian is done explaining what the pope said, that the theologian has completely explained away the infallible teaching of the Magisterium.
This thread is simply another example - "No salvation outside the Church" is reduced to a meaningless formula when explained by Fenton's "non-members" become members outside the Church - therefore they are saved because they die within the Church.
Therefore, Fenton has successfully convinced the masses that the dogma: "There is No salvation outside the Church" means "There is salvation outside the Church" and the universal salvation embracers deny there is any contradiction whatsoever.
-
This answers your question bowler as to why "it took until 1957 to 'get it right'"
They explained it more clearly is what actually happened:
...The Monsignor fully understood the complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body, you do not. Why do you dare claim he does not know what he is talking about as you suggest when you tell us all that he erred on this issue?
That's called circular logic. You didn't answer the question. The progressivists can say the same thing about all their teachings. You are using the same logic JPII, you are just applying it to something you like. Fenton's teaching is just an opinion, it has no basis in tradition, for no one defined it "correctly" till Fenton in 1957. Meaning it has never been defined correctly by anyone. It is a novelty. But you don't see that?
John Paul II Ecclesia Dei
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)
b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circuмstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
-
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
-
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…
Show me the exact quote that is "wrong" and explain why it is "wrong".
Fenton said non-members can be inside the Catholic Church. correct?
This is wrong because the Catholic Church never taught this, can you show me where the Church has taught this?
You must quote from the Traditional Catholic Magisterium to back up his claim. He also asserts the blatant falsehood that the Church’s Magisterium has declared that salvation can be and has been attained by persons who were not members of the Church. This is simply not true.
The Church, in Her own Canon Law, recognizes non-members can attain salvation.
-
Problem is that the quote in Cantate Domino was directly taken from a book called To Peter on the Faith written by Saint Fulgentius (who died in 533 AD):
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."
In that very same book, Saint Fulgentius also states the following:
“Hold most firmly and never doubt that, with the exception of those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who has not been converted from his sins through penance and faith, and freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, i.e. through baptism.” (On the Faith to Peter, 43, 73)
The Fathers at the Council of Florence would have never quoted from a book which contains outright heresy if "Baptism of Blood" (hence, "Baptism of Desire via Perfect Charity") was not a constant teaching of the universal Catholic Church. Likewise, no one whatsoever ever accused Saint Fulgentius of teaching, promulgating and/or holding to heretical ideas and/or erroneous opinions. Contrast this with Pope Honorius I who lived in the next century.
Remember, the Council of Florence, while at Basel, also stated the following:
By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
So, it is just silly to say that the Council of Florence was contradicting the "teachers in the theological schools," all of whom were teaching Baptism of Desire and/or Blood.
No one has replied to the above post. Remember, the Council of Florence also stated:
Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.
Of course, remember the quote from Saint Fulgentius which the Council of Florence directly quoted:
“Hold most firmly and never doubt that, with the exception of those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who has not been converted from his sins through penance and faith, and freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, i.e. through baptism.” (On the Faith to Peter, 43, 73)
So, non-members (that is, those who have not been sacramentally Baptized) can, per Saint Fulgentius, be saved. In addition, the Council of Florence while at Basel also stated this:
The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following. The human nature in Christ is really Christ. The human nature in Christ is the person of Christ. The intimate cause that determines the human nature in Christ is not really distinguished from the nature that is determined. The human nature in Christ is without doubt the person of the Word; and the Word in Christ, once the nature has been assumed, is really the person who assumes. The human nature assumed by the Word in a personal union is truly God, natural and proper. Christ according to his created will loves the human nature united to the person of the Word as much as he loves the divine nature. Just as two persons in God are equally lovable, so the two natures in Christ, the human and the divine, are equally lovable on account of the common person. The soul of Christ sees God as clearly and intensely as God sees himself.
So, one is united to Jesus Christ, to God Himself, solely through the bonds of charity, which, of course, means submitting oneself to the commands of God and the natural law, the former which is revealed to man and the latter which is engraved on the hearts of all human beings.
-
The Fathers at the Council of Florence would have never quoted from a book which contains outright heresy if "Baptism of Blood" (hence, "Baptism of Desire via Perfect Charity") was not a constant teaching of the universal Catholic Church. Likewise, no one whatsoever ever accused Saint Fulgentius of teaching, promulgating and/or holding to heretical ideas and/or erroneous opinions.
Your premise that "Florence would have never quoted from a book which contains outright heresy" is not a method of determining truth. The same goes for your theory that "no one whatsoever ever accused Saint Fulgentius of teaching heretical ideas".
You don't see anyone accusing of heresy any of the Fathers that taught John 3:5 as it is written. Nor St. Augustine of heresy for teaching that everyone who is predestined for the sacrament of baptism will be baptized.
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, we are discussing here salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be baptized nor martyred, something which is opposed to all that St. Fulgentus believed (and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, councils, creeds, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century).
The theory of BOD of the catechumen and BOB are insignificant theories affecting numerically speaking, no one.
-
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
-
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, we are discussing here salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be baptized nor martyred, something which is opposed to all that St. Fulgentus believed (and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, councils, creeds, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century).
The theory of BOD of the catechumen and BOB are insignificant theories affecting numerically speaking, no one.
This is the key point, why do some people take the BOD of the catechumen and BOB and take the GIANT leap to somehow include those who have no desire to be baptized, nor martyred...this is truly baffling to me...equally baffling is how a catholic can believe a non catholic can be saved by the Church without even realizing it ??????????
-
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, we are discussing here salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be baptized nor martyred, something which is opposed to all that St. Fulgentus believed (and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, councils, creeds, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century).
The theory of BOD of the catechumen and BOB are insignificant theories affecting numerically speaking, no one.
This is the key point, why do some people take the BOD of the catechumen and BOB and take the GIANT leap to somehow include those who have no desire to be baptized, nor martyred...this is truly baffling to me...equally baffling is how a catholic can believe a non catholic can be saved by the Church without even realizing it ??????????
The Catholic Church does not take a giant leap to include those who have no desire to be baptized, they MUST at least have an implicit desire with numerous other requisites for salvation to be possible.
It is difficult to respect those who exaggerate the oppositions views to make their own views seem more tenable.
-
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, we are discussing here salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be baptized nor martyred, something which is opposed to all that St. Fulgentus believed (and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, councils, creeds, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century).
The theory of BOD of the catechumen and BOB are insignificant theories affecting numerically speaking, no one.
This is the key point, why do some people take the BOD of the catechumen and BOB and take the GIANT leap to somehow include those who have no desire to be baptized, nor martyred...this is truly baffling to me...equally baffling is how a catholic can believe a non catholic can be saved by the Church without even realizing it ??????????
The Catholic Church does not take a giant leap to include those who have no desire to be baptized, they MUST at least have an implicit desire with numerous other requisites for salvation to be possible.
You implicitly are in denial if you leap from salvation by Baptism of Blood to salvation without any desire or knowledge to even be a Catholic. , but of course you don't know that you are in denial, just like they don't know the Catholic faith.
-
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, we are discussing here salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be baptized nor martyred, something which is opposed to all that St. Fulgentus believed (and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, councils, creeds, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century).
The theory of BOD of the catechumen and BOB are insignificant theories affecting numerically speaking, no one.
This is the key point, why do some people take the BOD of the catechumen and BOB and take the GIANT leap to somehow include those who have no desire to be baptized, nor martyred...this is truly baffling to me...equally baffling is how a catholic can believe a non catholic can be saved by the Church without even realizing it ??????????
It starts with a disbelief in that God could condemned these nice people around them, then it seeks teachers according to their own desires.
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
-
This answers your question bowler as to why "it took until 1957 to 'get it right'"
They explained it more clearly is what actually happened:
Quote:
"The writers of school theology from the fifteenth century to the nineteenth are not guilty of neglecting the teaching on the Mystical Body simply because this section of sacred doctrine has been developed in our own times. They knew and explained the theology of the Mystical Body even though they did not write the complete twentieth century type of treatise on this subject. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and the older school theologians were quite well aware of the fact. The theology of the Mystical Body is that portion of sacred doctrine in which we find the scientific exposition of the revealed message about the connection of the Catholic Church with our Lord. The school theologians knew and taught the theology of the Mystical body. A complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body is one in which all the theological elements pertinent to the Church's union with our Lord are brought together and compared, for the sake of a still more perfect and profound understanding of the mystery. The complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body is one of the glories of our own day. It would be naïve in the extreme to blame earlier theologians for not having done what has been distinctively a twentieth century work. Fenton
Monsignor Fenton has read all the theological elements pertinent to the Church's union with our Lord have you?
The Monsignor fully understood the complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body, you do not. Why do you dare claim he does not know what he is talking about as you suggest when you tell us all that he erred on this issue?
Have you answered my above questions to you bowler? I must have missed your responses. If so can you please restate them?
-
"The theses which have formed the school theology on the Catholic Church since the first part of the eighteenth century were developed in scientific theological form by the classical ecclesiologists from Cardinal John de Turrecremata to Francis Sylvius (1649). As a group these men devoted great attention to the teaching on the Mystical Body. Some of them, like the brilliant controversialists John Eck (1543) and Cardinal Hosius made the Formula "Body of Christ" serve as a definition of the Church. All of them joined the term "Mystical Body of Christ" to a great number of other designations, all of which served as names and figures of the Catholic Church. The classical ecclesiologists used all of these names in their proofs. The term "Body of Christ" in any one of a dozen variants occupied one of the most prominent positions among these names.
Fenton
Bowler,
Have you read the all the works on the "Body of Christ" from of Cardinal John de Turrecremata's time until Francis Sylvius? How about the works of John Eck and Cardinal Hosius?
Monsignor has read the works and understood them. What about you? Since you quite readily claim to know more than Father Fenton on the issue the amount of works you must have consumed, many of which are not available, others only available in Latin, must be astounding. How did you become such a master, greater even than the greatest theologian of the 20th century and greater than the cuмulative total of all the great theologians combined? Can you lay out the game plan for me to follow so I can be smarter than all the great theologians combined just like you?
-
Yes, I answered you before. What you say is circular logic, besides you disagree with Fenton because you believe that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be a Cathoilc nor belief in the Trinity.
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
-
This answers your question bowler as to why "it took until 1957 to 'get it right'"
They explained it more clearly is what actually happened:
...The Monsignor fully understood the complete theological treatise on the Mystical Body, you do not. Why do you dare claim he does not know what he is talking about as you suggest when you tell us all that he erred on this issue?
That's called circular logic. You didn't answer the question. The progressivists can say the same thing about all their teachings. You are using the same logic JPII, you are just applying it to something you like. Fenton's teaching is just an opinion, it has no basis in tradition, for no one defined it "correctly" till Fenton in 1957. Meaning it has never been defined correctly by anyone. It is a novelty. But you don't see that?
John Paul II Ecclesia Dei
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)
b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circuмstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
-
"These names or figures listed and used by the schoolmen were designations, both proper and metaphorical, found in the Scriptures or in the fathers and applied to the Catholic Church. Some of them, like Ager and Convivium were taken from our Lord's parables of the Kingdom. Others, as for example Corpus, Columna and Firmamentum are found in St. Paul's epistles. Still others, like Amica and Fons came from Old Testament passages which the Fathers applied to the Church. Fenton
Father Fenton has presented that Catholic Church's theology from the time of Christ until the death of the last valid Pope and put it all together for us but bowler begs to differ.
-
You don't follow Fenton, so what are you talking about? He does not teach what you believe that :
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
You have no common sense.
-
"There were a great many of these names. Turrecremata explains twenty five of them and Francis Sonnious (1576) eighteen. Thomas Stapleton (1598), Francis Suarez (1617), St. Robert Bellarmine) (1621) and Francis Sylvius (1649) all employ over forty of them. Each name was used to show the existence of one definite set of characteristics in the Catholic Church. The very multitude of these names tended to protect these classical theologians against the temptation to carry any single analogy to extravagant lengths. [Emphasis mine as is anything else bolded - J.G.] They could not easily forget that the same organization which St. Paul called the Body of Christ had been compared by our Lord to a net in which both good and bad fishes were enclosed. The Church which was called the garden enclosed was also known as the sheepfold of Christ, containing those sheep over whom our Lord had set His vicar on earth. As a result we look in vain through the writings of these classical school theologians for the errors relative to the Mystical Body reproved in the Mystici Corporis. Fenton
Bowler,
In all your enlightened studies of the Church which surpasses all of the Catholic Church's teaching, did you come across the 25 names of the Church from Turrecremata or the 18 from Sonnious or the over forty by Stapleton, Surarez, Bellarmine and Sylvious? Can you give us the titles of the works you read which helped you understand better than Fenton who actually did read and understand all the works written by the above? Have you ever taken the trouble to count the different names used to describe the Church by all who have written about her as Fenton has? It is an honor to have someone as enlightened as you posting on a blog to set us straight. I can only imagine the depth of your studies.
-
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, we are discussing here salvation of people who have no explicit desire to be baptized nor martyred, something which is opposed to all that St. Fulgentus believed (and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, councils, creeds, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century).
The theory of BOD of the catechumen and BOB are insignificant theories affecting numerically speaking, no one.
This is the key point, why do some people take the BOD of the catechumen and BOB and take the GIANT leap to somehow include those who have no desire to be baptized, nor martyred...this is truly baffling to me...equally baffling is how a catholic can believe a non catholic can be saved by the Church without even realizing it ??????????
The Catholic Church does not take a giant leap to include those who have no desire to be baptized, they MUST at least have an implicit desire with numerous other requisites for salvation to be possible.
It is difficult to respect those who exaggerate the oppositions views to make their own views seem more tenable.
It is difficult to respect those who fail to clearly articulate their point and instead say here read all these books, why do I have to read all those books when we have the clear teachings of popes stating the opposite of what you believe...can you give me 1 pope who taught what you believe? I'll ask again, what are these numerous requisites that are needed by non catholics to be saved?
-
Bowler,
In all your enlightened studies of the Church which surpasses all of the Catholic Church's ...Have you ever taken the trouble to count the different names used to describe the Church by all who have written about her as Fenton has?
Once again, why do you keep harping on Fenton when you reject him in your belief that:?
You don't follow Fenton, so what are you talking about? He does not teach what you believe that :
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
You have no common sense.
-
people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members[/b].[/size]
"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)
-
It is difficult to respect those who fail to clearly articulate their point and instead say here read all these books, why do I have to read all those books when we have the clear teachings of popes stating the opposite of what you believe...can you give me 1 pope who taught what you believe? I'll ask again, what are these numerous requisites that are needed by non catholics to be saved?
One of the many reasons BODers find it is impossible to clearly articulate their point is because a BOD is only an opinion with no unanimity of belief of the requisites. There is no formula for a BOD, it's guidelines are, like all things NO, ever changing. MyrnaM posted (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=318&num=3) a page from an old catechism teaching that one can be saved via a BOD even though the person never even heard of the Sacrament (can we assume he also never even heard of the Church?) So based on that catechsim, a BOD even saves by mistake.
The singular and only belief that the Universal Salvation embracers have universally in common, is the belief that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for all. After that, it's requisites are a free for all wherein all those outside the Church can be saved . . . . . . . . . .never mind the teachings of saints who taught that even the majority of those who die within the Church are lost forever.
-
"The first of these controversies had to do with the designation of member of the Church. The name Mystical body of Christ indicates the Church as receiving a vital influx from our Lord. The great Dominican Cardinal John de Turrecremata considered a member as a living part of a living organism. As a result he refused the title of member to Catholics in the state of mortal sin. Although sinners as well as righteous men could belong to the Church or be parts of the Catholic Church, they had no right to the dignity and the designation of members. Fenton
-
"The restricted use of the term member continued for some time. Theoretically St. Robert Bellarmine did not approve of it, but in practice he habitually spoke of sinful Catholics as being within the Church rather than as members of this society. Gregory of Valentia (1603) rightly considered that this difference with reference to the title of member was a matter of slight importance. Adam Tanner (1632) and Francis Sylvious finally rejected Turrecremata's terminology since it rested upon an unwarranted analogical use of the word member. Fenton
-
"Like Turrecremata and like the other classical ecclesiologists, James Latomus taught that the Mystical Body of Christ is the actually existing Catholic Church. However the great Louvain controversialist believed that the title Mystical Body belonged primarily to the group living the life of charity within that Church. The actually existing Catholic Church, the Ecclesia permixta, possesses all of her spiritual resources and dignities by reason of the righteous among her members. Thus, according to Latomus, the Ecclesia permixta is properly though not primarily designated as the Body of Christ. Alphonsus a Castro (1559) drew a somewhat similar distinction between the names Corpus Christi and Ovile Christi. St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on the unity of the Church was instrumental in turning the school theology away from this manner of interpreting the doctrine of the Mystical Body. Fenton
Who on this site claims Fenton is wrong in his teaching on Salvation? What I have been showing in these quotes is that he is VERY qualified to speak to the issue.
-
"The far-reaching controversy relative to the proper definition of the Church militant of the New Testament was likewise decided in the light of the name Corpus Mysticuм. Some of the classical ecclesiologists, notably Suarez and Sylvious, were convinced that an occult heretic should not be numbered among those who belong to the Catholic Church. [Yet the R & R's believe a public heretic does belong to the Church and can even head [!] the Catholic Church - J.G.] Basing their argument upon the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ, they reasoned that a man who belongs to the Church should have some part of that life. Since faith is the fundamental act in the supernatural order, they concluded that the man who rejected the faith received no vital influx from Christ and hence should not be considered as a member of the Church.
Fenton.
-
"Like Turrecremata and like the other classical ecclesiologists, James Latomus taught that the Mystical Body of Christ is the actually existing Catholic Church. However the great Louvain controversialist believed that the title Mystical Body belonged primarily to the group living the life of charity within that Church. The actually existing Catholic Church, the Ecclesia permixta, possesses all of her spiritual resources and dignities by reason of the righteous among her members. Thus, according to Latomus, the Ecclesia permixta is properly though not primarily designated as the Body of Christ. Alphonsus a Castro (1559) drew a somewhat similar distinction between the names Corpus Christi and Ovile Christi. St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on the unity of the Church was instrumental in turning the school theology away from this manner of interpreting the doctrine of the Mystical Body. Fenton
Who on this site claims Fenton is wrong in his teaching on Salvation? What I have been showing in these quotes is that he is VERY qualified to speak to the issue.
me, I'll take the magisterium's teaching over Fenton
-
"Like Turrecremata and like the other classical ecclesiologists, James Latomus taught that the Mystical Body of Christ is the actually existing Catholic Church. However the great Louvain controversialist believed that the title Mystical Body belonged primarily to the group living the life of charity within that Church. The actually existing Catholic Church, the Ecclesia permixta, possesses all of her spiritual resources and dignities by reason of the righteous among her members. Thus, according to Latomus, the Ecclesia permixta is properly though not primarily designated as the Body of Christ. Alphonsus a Castro (1559) drew a somewhat similar distinction between the names Corpus Christi and Ovile Christi. St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on the unity of the Church was instrumental in turning the school theology away from this manner of interpreting the doctrine of the Mystical Body. Fenton
Who on this site claims Fenton is wrong in his teaching on Salvation? What I have been showing in these quotes is that he is VERY qualified to speak to the issue.
we know The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. It is not an invisible
extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “... Leo XIII, of immortal memory
in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to
state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her
soul.’”464
we know the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “... the mystical
body, the Church (corpore mystico)...”465
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “... the Church, the Mystical
Body of Christ...”466
Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “... His mystical Body.”467
Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to teach
that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body.
Can one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body? I don't see how anyone who knows these facts can answer yes,
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is
so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ... From this it
follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden
and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly
impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that
man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of
both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate
union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something
dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
-
Bowler,
In all your enlightened studies of the Church which surpasses all of the Catholic Church's ...Have you ever taken the trouble to count the different names used to describe the Church by all who have written about her as Fenton has?
Once again, why do you keep harping on Fenton when you reject him in your belief that:?
You don't follow Fenton, so what are you talking about? He does not teach what you believe that :
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth's “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is:
Unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jews and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
You have no common sense.
-
we know The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. It is not an invisible
extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “... Leo XIII, of immortal memory
in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to
state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her
soul.’”464
we know the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “... the mystical
body, the Church (corpore mystico)...”465
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “... the Church, the Mystical
Body of Christ...”466
Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “... His mystical Body.”467
Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to teach
that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body.
Can one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body? I don't see how anyone who knows these facts can answer yes,
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is
so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ... From this it
follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden
and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly
impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that
man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of
both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate
union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something
dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
Had Pius XII not made those infallible quotes, all the BODers would still be teaching the "soul of the Church" theory, including Fenton. Look it up here on CI and see how many BODers still teach the soul of the Church theory. The majority of BODers still have not heard the news of Pius XII or do not want to accept it.
Look up how many times they quote the Catechism of Pius X quote as if it were infallible:
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,”
Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he
be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is
in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of
Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as
best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but
is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of
salvation.”
-
"Thus they insisted upon defining the Church as the society of those who actually have the divine faith, rather than as the congregation of those who profess that faith. [If an occult heretic Pope professes the faith, or at least does not deny it, then no harm is done to the flock or the visible unity of the Church - J.G.] A good number of early school theologians used that type of definitional.