the two sources of Revelation

It is my understanding that this was a debated question among the theologians which the Council of Trent did not resolve.

.

This is never going to end.  BOD and BOB is a foretaste of
eternity... but not "in heaven!" --  Perpetual disagreement
has it's place:  elsewhere.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Sigismund

One can believe in EENS and still believe in both implicit and explicit baptism of desire.  

I think some people who believe in Baptism of desire still believe in EENS, while others, just throw away EENS and say everyone can have baptism of desire, even if they don't desire to be Catholic, because they believe in universal salvation.

Not even the new Catechism teaches universal salvation:

Quote

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

Quote

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

    As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

EENS is a significant dogma of the Catholic faith, as there have been and will be souls who die outside the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church.

I find it interesting that in Fr. F.X. Schouppe's Purgatory he
says that the punishment of Purgatory is identical to the
punishment in hell, but there is a difference only in the duration,
for hell is without end and Purgatory is only of limited duration.  
Otherwise, it is the same.  

The rotten CCC tries to do with the catechism what the rotten
Lumen Gentium 8 tries to do with the dogma of the Faith.

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Isn't "There is no salvation outside the Church" dogma?

Yes, it is a dogma, but few people believe it anymore. Instead, they think that nearly everyone goes to heaven.

One can believe in EENS and still believe in both implicit and explicit baptism of desire.  

Catholics, unless they are inculpably ignorant, MUST accept EENS and still believe that one can have both an implicit and explicit desire to join the Church, though that by itself does not save one, as the desire must be an effective desire accompanied by the other requisites, such as supernatural faith, and perfect charity, perseverance in living an upright life, sincere and persevering prayer to know and do God's will.

EENS is a dogma, infallibly defined three times in the past 900
years.  If you want the direct quotes, all you need to do is go
to a "Feeneyite" website and look for Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.


BOD and BOB are not dogma, and have not been infallibly defined.
They are not condemned heresies, either, so one has the 'freedom
of religion' to believe them if one wants to, but one also has no
ability to demand that someone else likewise believes them.  And to
make it into a point of argument forever and ever amen, is not a
virtuous way to go.  

As for "Feeneyites," it's noteworthy that in 1947 Catholics all over
America were Feeneyites.  It was extremely popular in 1947
to be a major fan of Fr. Leonard Feeney. His photograph was on the
wall in prominent places of honor in parochial school classrooms
everywhere. He was a famous priest, and greatly loved by
schoolteachers and students from sea to shining sea.  

He was widely considered the most eminently qualified theologian in
America.  There was no end to the praises heaped upon him far and
wide.  Then one day, one cleric in Rome wrote a curious letter that
was a response to complaints from liberals that Fr. Feeney was not
'flexible' on his interpretation of EENS (which was none other than
what had been infallibly defined three times and many other times
not infallibly), and that he was unrelenting in his teaching that the
Gospel of John (vi. 54), "Amen, amen I say to you:  Except you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have
life in you," was LITERALLY TRUE!! (How scandalous, for, let's say,
pagans, Lutherans, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, atheists and
Jews!)  And the creeping Modernism in Rome was making
accommodation with error, a.k.a. aggiornamento, more important
that holding fast to sacred Tradition.  

Now, HEBF is trying to do the same thing with the ExSPX and we're
all up in arms.  Well, this ain't the first time around this block!

The curious letter, of dubious authority, was directed at Fr. Feeney
to appease the liberals, but to add insult to injury, it was slipped
into DS (Enchiridion Symbolorum) by one Fr. Karl Rahner (of
infelicitous memory) even though it is not the kind of thing that
belongs there at all, and there is nothing else of its kind to be found
in the DS of 1953 (or thereabouts).

One may rightly have the impression that the spirits of wickedness
in high places have taken a step down so as to occupy high places
in our own temporal world.

Therefore, overnight, this unclean spirit of the world which would
later develop into the unclean spirit of Vat.II, got hold of parochial
schoolteachers nationwide, for there is no other excuse for the
fact that Fr. Feeney's framed photographs were all taken down
unceremoniously in one day, effectively.  There was no decree from
the Holy Office to remove his pictures.  But that is how the devil
works.  He gets into the hearts and minds of even the faithful and
inspires them to take collective action, even if they are not aware
that this inspiration is coming from the devil.  

It is a battle of the principalities and powers, against the spirits of
wickedness in high places (cf. Eph. vi. 12).

The same unclean spirit persists to this day, 66 years later.  Most
of us are not even that old -- which means this unclean spirit has
been taking hold of souls since before we were born, forming a
kind of backdrop to our whole life.

What used to be normal for the Universal Church suddenly became
abominable for the majority.  Whether they recognized it or
not, it was a desire for "just getting along" with false religions that
was at the root of it, an outgrowth of the condemned heresy of
Americanism, in which "open-mindedness" is the greatest virtue
imaginable, one that denounces "fundamentalism,"  "extremism,"
and "narrow-mindedness" as vices to be avoided at all costs.

Only, they haven't tried much to abuse the terms "virtue" and "vice."
Those are words best tossed down the memory hole, apparently.

Now, you tell me:  which is more "open-minded":  Extra ecclesiam
nulla salus, or so-called baptism of desire?  Alternatively, universal
salvation and indifferentism, or a literal interpretation of Scripture?

Furthermore, which is more "narrow-minded" or "extremist":  so-
called baptism of blood, or "outside the Church there is no salvation?"

Fr. Leonard Feeney had the special grace of insight to recognize that
there was a new trend growing in popularity, before during and after
WWII, which consisted in the acceptance of error and condemned
heresy, and the denial of previously held doctrines of the Deposit of
Faith.  He had the grace to recognize that this ONE THING, EENS,
was at the forefront.  It was the arrowhead on the arrow, the whole
point of the spear, the warhead on the ICBM.

He predicted, and time has proven him correct, that once one accepts
this heresy that "There IS salvation outside the Church,"
there will then be no end to the other heresies that are supported in
its wake.  

I got a paperback copy of the Vat.II docuмents from a used
bookstore shelf in 1985.  It was obviously 20 years old, as evidenced
by the yellowing pages, wrinkled cover and small chips of paper
missing on the page edges.  It is now more than twice that age, but
it says the same thing.  It has several pencil marks inside on the pages,
but only one complete sentence.  It is found on the page where the
words from LG8 say:  "This Church of Christ ... subsists in ... the
Catholic Church."  And the sentence written by the previous owner
is, "Yes, here it is, you see, there IS salvation outside the church."

The handwriting is that of an elderly person. I'm sure whoever he was,
he has long since passed away.  I pray for the repose of his soul.

A second problem in the catacombs is the confusion over the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - "No Salvation Outside the Church". I don't doubt that many people who hold this position are of good will. Some don't appear to be but I believe most are. They really get convinced that anyone who is not baptized with water goes to Hell. This is the case even in the face of an onslaught of authoritative evidence to the contrary such as The Case of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Is Baptism of Desire and Blood a Catholic Teaching? by the late Dr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, both links at Griff Ruby's site the-pope.com. We live in a time when the Devil has been given more power than he ever had, and he knows our weaknesses and how to magnify them. He just has to get us to swallow a small error and our pride will take care of the rest.

    Perhaps some insist that God secretly poured water on the Blessed Virgin Mary's head, before she was conceived; somehow, as His willing or desiring her to be conceived without Original Sin is not enough, God must look to the feeneyites to make sure He does it the right way.

    Some might object claiming that one merely desiring to become confirmed or to be a Priest does not become confirmed or ordained even if he was killed before actually having the sacrament performed on him, no matter how good-willed, in-culpably ignorant, and sincere one is.

    This objection is obviously raised by one who is in-culpably ignorant himself as they do not understand that what we call "baptism of desire" in English is phrased "baptismus flaminis" in Latin. Do you see the word "flaminis"? The word does not mean "desire". You can see where the English word "flame" would come from that. "Baptismus flaminis" is a phrase which means "baptism of fire/wind/spirit". It is the baptism of the Holy Ghost as the words "fire" and "wind" are words used to describe Him. To clarify, our English phrase "baptism of desire" does not mean merely an implicit or explicit "wish" to be Baptized. It is a firm determination to do all God requires of salvation, to receive Baptism as soon as possible; it includes the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. In other words:

    We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgement but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denziger, n. 1792).

    Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

    However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. [Note: This statement is addressed to the Feeneyites, the Recognize and Resisters (R & R's), the Sedevacantists, and all who wish to be in union with the One, True, Church in our understanding of her teachings.]

    Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (v.g. St. Matthew 28:19-20). Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar [there is that unpleasant teaching to the "R & R's" again as being united to him does not mean giving him lip service but adhering to all he binds on earth], through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

    Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. [Did you catch that? It is not just the sedevacantists that teach this.]

    Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

    In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacraments of Penance (Denziger, nn. 797, 807).

    The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

    However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

    These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ." (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.) For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says:

 "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

    Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition " in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" [this isn't universal salvationism my friends] since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, loc. cit., 342)

    With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution "Singulari quadam," in Denziger, nn. 1641, ff. - also Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical Letter "Quanto conficiamur moerore" in Denzinger, n. 1677).

    But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews, 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to fellowship of His children" (Denz., n. 801) (The Holy Office Letter regarding the "No Salvation Outside the Church" Dogma) [Emphasis mine throughout]

    That is correct, one cannot be confirmed or ordained by merely wishing for it, but I hope I have shown, that is besides the point, it is not necessary to be confirmed or ordained in order for salvation to be made possible, but to be cleansed of Original Sin. Human creatures are sensible beings and so God, by "divine institution" rather than "intrinsic necessity" has made the sacraments sensible as Father Joseph Clifford Fenton affirmed from The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Catholic Church.

    But God is not trapped by His divine institution to the point where there are absolutely no exceptions to the ordinary means of being cleansed from Original Sin. This holds true for being forgiven of mortal sins by the way. We cannot be sure one commits a mortal sin, says an act of contrition, heads out the door to go to Confession and gets killed on the way is damned. The same is true regarding those people who throughout history had no access to Confession. But at some point, we realize that all the proof, examples and authoritative infallible teachings of the Church will not convince some, so then we shut-up and pray. There are many feeneyites that I have tried to discuss the issue with that leave the impression that were a valid Pope, such as one like Pius V to make an Ex Cathedra statement on the issue that they would just say that proves he is not a valid Pope. This is not exaggeration for effect. Some of them really would respond this way. Do not let the Feeneyites that are trapped in their own pride (nor those who are of good will) disturb your peace. God will judge their hearts which is a good things for those who are sincere. They will know well enough who is inside or outside the Church when they are judged and some might be unpleasantly surprised. For the rest, please listen to the authoritative masters provided in the links I have shared. Yes, false ecuмenism and Universal Salvation are terrible errors that lead many to Hell, but there is no need to embrace an equal and opposite error to combat it.

    Despite all this, please let me be clear. The Feeneyites are right. That's correct. The Feeneyites are right. There IS no salvation outside the Church. If anyone denies that they are not a Catholic. The problem here is not the refusal to accept the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church but the interpretation thereof.

There are many infallible teachings.  A vast majority of them are not solemnly defined.  The teaching that non-members of the Church can be saved by an effective desire (so long as the other requisites are present) is an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.  It has been authoritatively and infallibly taught many times.  God is not arbitrary damning the just man because he did not jump through the right hoop any more than He refuses to damn an evil baptized member.  It is God that cleanses the soul of Original Sin, not water.

Now those who know Baptism is necessary (with the necessity of precept) or who are culpably ignorant of this fact but refuse to get baptized or culpably needlessly put it off will be damned.  

Quote from: SJB

Quote

BOD and BOB are not dogma, and have not been infallibly defined.
They are not condemned heresies, either, so one has the 'freedom
of religion' to believe them if one wants to, but one also has no
ability to demand that someone else likewise believes them.  And to
make it into a point of argument forever and ever amen, is not a
virtuous way to go.  

So we are required to believe only defined dogmas? Is that what you just said?

The fact that there are guardian angels has never been defined by the Church. Do you believe it's okay to hold that there are no guardian angels? If not, why not?

Just read what I said.  Don't read INTO what I said.  

Do you want to talk about guardian angels now?
What does that have to do with receiving the Blessed
Sacrament from a priest?  I knew a priest who refused
to use the term "guardian angel" and insisted on saying
"guarding angel."  So were his consecrations invalid?  
What objective could a priest have in standing at the
pulpit telling hundreds of people that he doesn't like to
use the term "guardian angels" and that he will always
say "guarding angels?"  Why would he do that?  I recall
hearing many people gasping and moaning, then.  And
why then would this same priest give a weekly lecture
for open enrollment that went for an hour each week,
supposedly on the Catechism, but when you attended
you would find that it was actually a series all about
his infatuation with the writings of Thomas Merton!!
Later, I would find out that he didn't believe that the
baptism of a priest for a child has any "magical effect"
but it is just symbolic and it helps us to know that the
child has become an "official member of the Church."

And after the Northridge Earthquake, when the only
visible damage inside the church was the fact that the
large crucifix had fallen off the wall, he said to the people
one day, that the crucifix would remain there, on the
floor, until enough money had been collected to repair
all the other damage to the church property.  The people
gasped and moaned when he said that, too.

He is simply making the point that an infallible teaching does not have to be solemnly defined to be infallible.

Quote from: SJB

Quote

BOD and BOB are not dogma, and have not been infallibly defined.
They are not condemned heresies, either, so one has the 'freedom
of religion' to believe them if one wants to, but one also has no
ability to demand that someone else likewise believes them.  And to
make it into a point of argument forever and ever amen, is not a
virtuous way to go.  

So we are required to believe only defined dogmas? Is that what you just said?

The fact that there are guardian angels has never been defined by the Church. Do you believe it's okay to hold that there are no guardian angels? If not, why not?

Just read what I said.  Don't read INTO what I said.  

Do you want to talk about guardian angels now?
What does that have to do with receiving the Blessed
Sacrament from a priest?  I knew a priest who refused
to use the term "guardian angel" and insisted on saying
"guarding angel."  So were his consecrations invalid?  
What objective could a priest have in standing at the
pulpit telling hundreds of people that he doesn't like to
use the term "guardian angels" and that he will always
say "guarding angels?"  Why would he do that?  I recall
hearing many people gasping and moaning, then.  And
why then would this same priest give a weekly lecture
for open enrollment that went for an hour each week,
supposedly on the Catechism, but when you attended
you would find that it was actually a series all about
his infatuation with the writings of Thomas Merton!!
Later, I would find out that he didn't believe that the
baptism of a priest for a child has any "magical effect"
but it is just symbolic and it helps us to know that the
child has become an "official member of the Church."

And after the Northridge Earthquake, when the only
visible damage inside the church was the fact that the
large crucifix had fallen off the wall, he said to the people
one day, that the crucifix would remain there, on the
floor, until enough money had been collected to repair
all the other damage to the church property.  The people
gasped and moaned when he said that, too.

I read what you said and it was wrong. If you mean something else, by all means tell us what it was.

Quote

As for "Feeneyites," it's noteworthy that in 1947 Catholics all over America were Feeneyites.  It was extremely popular in 1947 to be a major fan of Fr. Leonard Feeney. His photograph was on the wall in prominent places of honor in parochial school classrooms
everywhere. He was a famous priest, and greatly loved by schoolteachers and students from sea to shining sea.  

He was widely considered the most eminently qualified theologian in America.  There was no end to the praises heaped upon him far and wide.

Any source for this little cut and paste monologue?

I would be interested to see it myself.  A priest obdurate to the wishes of the Holy See and disobedient is held out to be a martyr so to speak for the faith.  

I have seen pictures of him.  I looked like he yelled alot.  

It reminds me of a note on a Protestant preachers lectern.  "Your argument is weak here.  Yell louder."  I guess if you yell you become more convincing.

I'm sure he had a charismatic personality and was liked.  But that is beside the point.  I want the truth man.  The truth.  Quite contradicting and disobeying the magisterium.   If he didn't know he was wrong then, he knows now.  God rest his soul.  

Some people think it is a good sign that the heretical Novus Ordo buried him.