Anything wrong with the above quote?

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.
 

Quote from: gooch

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.  

Quote

"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"?  

Quote

"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.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote

"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?

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote

"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.”