Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on September 12, 2017, 02:26:06 PM
-
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/14Sep/sep2ftt.htm
This installment is a very essential installment explained by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton that should be carefully studied. If you want to have the fullest and clearest teaching on the Church's necessity for salvation found in one authoritative docuмent, this is the docuмent to study. This is a good place to go if you want to clarify Church teaching for good-willed people of the Feeneyite bent. Of course you will need to explain that this is indeed an authoritative docuмent which all good Catholics must give their assent. Thanks be to God that Father Fenton explains this below:
VII
THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER
SUPREMA HAEC SACRA
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities."
The doctrinal portion of the letter follows.
Accordingly the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session, held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the August Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline, be given.
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 judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (magisterium).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach there is also contained that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For Our Saviour gave the things that are contained in the deposit of faith to be explained by the ecclesiastical magisterium and not by private judgments.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches us that in this matter we are dealing with a most strict precept of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly ordered His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.
Now, not the least important among the commandments of Christ is that one 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, through whom He Himself governs the Church on earth in a visible manner.
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.
The Savior not only gave the precept that all nations should enter the Church, but He also established the Church as a means of salvation, without which no one may be able to 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 towards man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when these helps are used only in intention or desire (ubi voto solummodo vel desiderio adhibeantur). This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both with reference to the sacrament of regeneration and with reference to the sacrament of penance.
In its own way, the same thing must be said about the Church, insofar as the Church itself is a general help to salvation. Therefore, in order 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 required that at least he be united to it by intention and desire.
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 intention (votum) which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the 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." For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are really (in re) incorporated into the Church as members and those who are joined to it only in intention (in voto).
Discussing the members of whom the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: "Only those who have received the laver of regeneration, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body or been expelled by legitimate authority by reason of very serious offences, are actually to be counted as members of the Church."
Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagem non pertinent), he mentions those who are "ordered to the Redeemer's Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which "they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation," since "they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all those united to the Church only by implicit desire and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally (aequaliter) in every religion.
Nor must we think that any kind of intention of entering the Church is sufficient in order that one may be saved. It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him." The Council of Trent declares: "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 the fellowship of His children." [The original Latin text and the official English translation of the Suprema haec sacra appeared in AER, CXXVII, 4 (Oct., 1952), 307-15. The part of the translation quoted above is on pp. 312-14.]
The rest of the letter contains the directions and exhortations spoken of in the first paragraph quoted above. They have no immediate bearing on the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation.
This letter, known as the Suprema haec sacra, from the first three words of the Latin text, is of unique importance for the study of this section of sacred theology. It is an instruction of the Holy Office, sent out with the approval and at the bidding of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. As such, it is an authoritative, though obviously not an infallible, docuмent. That is to say, the teachings contained in the Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular docuмent. Nevertheless, the fact remains that much of its teaching - indeed, what we may call the substance of its teaching - is material which has appeared in previous docuмents emanating from the Sovereign Pontiff himself and from Oecuмenical Councils of the Catholic Church.
The great importance of the Suprema haec sacra is based on the fact that this letter sets forth in full explicitness some distinctions and explanations that had been clearly implied and forcefully taught in previous authoritative docuмents of the teaching Church, but which had never before been set forth in these authoritative pronouncements as explicitly as in the writings of the traditional Catholic theologians. Among these teachings are: (1) the statement that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means and with the necessity of precept; (2) the fact that when we describe an individual who is convinced that the Catholic Church has truly been established by Our Lord, and who still obdurately refuses to enter the Church, as being in a condition in which he cannot attain his eternal salvation, we are speaking of the Church's necessity of precept rather than of its necessity of means; (3) the explicit distinction between an explicit and an implicit will to enter the Church; (4) the outright assertion that a person who has merely an implicit will to enter the Church can be saved; and (5) the fact that no will or desire of entering the Church can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation unless it is enlightened by true supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity.
Other teachings of the Suprema haec sacra, such as its insistence upon the fact that the doctrine of no salvation outside the true Church is a genuine dogma of the Catholic faith, had been stated explicitly many times in previous pronouncements of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Each one of the paragraphs cited above contains invaluable information about what the Church itself really understands and teaches about the dogma of its own necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation. It will be helpful to consider each one of them individually.
The first paragraph we have cited tells of the authoritative character of the letter itself. The Cardinals of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed that these explanations be given, and the Holy Father approved their decision. We are dealing, then, with an authoritative docuмent. It would be wrong for any teacher of Catholic doctrine to ignore or to contradict the teachings contained in this Holy Office letter.
The next paragraph repeats almost verbatim the statement of the Vatican Council in the third chapter of its dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, to the effect that "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 judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office." It is interesting to see, however, that where the Dei Filiususes the expression "either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium," the Suprema haec sacra says "not only by solemn judgment but also by the ordinary and universal magisterium." Its use of the "non tantum . . . sed etiam," instead of the "sive . . . sive," manifests its conviction that, in dealing with the explanation of the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, it is dealing with a matter which had hitherto been set forth mostly in the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The previous paragraph had characterized the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church as a doctrine "which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach" and as an "infallible statement." This one states clearly that it is a dogma - in other words, one of the teachings which the Church finds in Scripture or in divine apostolic tradition, and which, by either solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching activity, it presents to the people as something they must believe as a part of divine public revelation. The Suprema haec sacra, then, leaves no room for any opinion that this teaching might be something merely connected with the deposit of divine revelation. This truth is a part of the supernatural message communicated by God through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
The Holy Office letter then proceeds to state explicitly and emphatically that the dogma means exactly and only what the Church understands and teaches it to mean. In other words the people who write to the effect that the viewpoints of men have widened in the course of recent history, and that thus we must seek out some new interpretation of the axiom that there is no salvation outside the Church are quite mistaken in their fundamental approach to the problem. Changing cultural attitudes have nothing whatsoever to do with the accurate and acceptable statement of what is meant by the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. Our Lord has not given this truth to men as something to be interpreted and explained freely and more or less generously by private teachers. It is definitely not something to be interpreted or explained in such a way as to make the Church appear more modern or up-to-date. What the people should be taught about this truth is its real and accurate meaning. And the only agency empowered and commissioned to perform this work of interpretation and teaching is the apostolic college, the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic bishops associated with him to form the doctrinal and jurisdictional hierarchy of the true Church of the New Testament.
In this matter it will be helpful to refer to the section of the allocution Si diligis, delivered by Pope Pius XII to the members of the hierarchy who were gathered in Rome for the ceremony of the canonization of St. Pius X.
(http://file:///C:\Users\gregoryj\AppData\Local\Temp\2\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg) Christ Our Lord entrusted the truth which He had brought from heaven to the Apostles and, through them, to their successors. He sent His Apostles, as He had been sent by the Father, to teach all nations everything they had heard from Him. The Apostles are, therefore, by divine right the true doctors and teachers of the Church. Besides the lawful successors of the Apostles - namely, the Roman Pontiff for the universal Church and the Bishops for the faithful entrusted to their care - there are no other teachers divinely constituted in the Church of Christ. But both the Bishops and, first of all, the Supreme Teacher and Vicar of Christ on earth, may associate others with themselves in their work of teacher, and use their advice; they delegate to them the faculty to teach, either by special grant, or by conferring an office to which the faculty is attached. Those who are so called teach, not in their own name, nor by reason of their theological knowledge, but by reason of the mandate which they have received from the lawful teaching authority. Their faculty always remains subject to that authority, nor is it ever exercised in its own right or independently. [AER, CXXXI, 2 (Aug., 1954), 133 f.]
Over the course of the last few years, particularly, there have been some clever attempts to interpret the dogma of the Church's necessity for salvation. The only standard by which these attempts may properly be evaluated is that of the teaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself. It is this teaching which the Suprema haec sacra now begins to present.
An examination of the text of the Suprema haec sacra will show us from the very outset that the Holy Office did not intend to set forth anything like an exhaustive explanation of the dogma in its letter. Thus, for example, the docuмent does not go into the nature of the Church or the nature of salvation itself. All that the Cardinals of the Congregation wished to do was to present a correct resolution of the particular point at issue in the controversy which occasioned the writing of the Suprema haec sacra.
Thus the letter brings out the fact that the Catholic Church can be said to be necessary for salvation, in one way, because it is something which Our Lord has commanded, or given a precept, that all men should enter. It is His explicit order, given to us through His apostles, that His precepts should all be observed. Thus a man who teaches that non-members of the true Church should be let alone because, in his opinion, they are already in a position that is satisfactory with reference to Our Lord, is violating Our Lord's precept directly.
The next paragraph is an authoritative statement to the effect that we have a definite and highly important precept from Our Lord 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, through whom He Himself governs the Church on earth in a visible manner. It is highly important to understand how this command is contained in the sources of divine public revelation.
St. Matthew's Gospel shows how Our Lord commanded His apostles to teach His message and to administer His sacrament of baptism.
"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" [Matt., 28: 18-20.]
The same idea is brought out in the last chapter of the Gospel according to St. Mark.
And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" [Mark 16: 15-16.] Baptism is, of course, the sacrament of entrance into the Church. Such is the force of the baptismal character that, unless it be impeded by public heresy or apostasy, schism, or the full measure of excommunication, it renders the person who possesses it a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ on earth. In issuing the command that His followers administer the sacrament of baptism, Our Lord was, of course, clearly imposing upon those who heard their preaching the obligation to receive this sacrament of regeneration.
The second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles shows that this was the way in which the Apostles themselves understood Our Lord's orders. When, at the end of the sermon by St. Peter on the first Christian Pentecost, his hearers asked the Prince of the Apostles what they should do, he ordered them to do penance and to be baptized.
"Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?
But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" [Acts 2: 37-38.]
Thus St. Peter demonstrated in the most practical manner possible that he realized that Our Lord's teaching had contained a command that all men should be baptized and should thus enter the true kingdom of God of the New Testament. Obviously Our Lord's teaching had also contained prohibitions against heresy and schism. The teaching of the Suprema haec sacra is thus a statement of traditional Catholic doctrine.
From the fact that the Church is necessary for eternal salvation with the genuine necessity of precept, the Holy Office letter draws the conclusion that "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." It is to be noted that this conclusion is the practical expression of the meaning of the Church's necessity of precept. It is very definitely is not, either in itself or in its context in the Suprema haec sacra, an expression of the complete and ultimate meaning of the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation.
The Holy Office letter is the first authoritative docuмent to bring out in full explicitness the teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation both with the necessity of precept and with the necessity of means. A thing is said to be necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept when it has been commanded in such a way that, if a person disobeys this order, he is guilty of mortal sin. A means is necessary for salvation, on the other hand, is something which a man must have if he is to attain eternal salvation. This necessity holds even where there is no obdurateness on the part of the individual who does not possess the means. The Catholic Church, the true kingdom of God of the New Testament, is, according to the text of the Suprema haec sacra, a reality "without which no one may be able to enter the kingdom of eternal glory." This, and not the statement about persons obstinately refusing to enter the Church when they know that it is the true Church, is the explanation of the Church’s necessity of means.
This paragraph brings out two truths about the Church as a necessary means to the attainment of eternal salvation. First, there is the fact that the Church is a means necessary for salvation only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity. Second is the fact that means necessary for salvation by divine institution can produce their effects, as the docuмent says, "in certain cases" when there is only a will or desire to possess these things.
(8a) When the docuмent classifies the Catholic Church as a means of salvation which is necessary only by divine institution and not by an intrinsic necessity, it likewise mentions two other realities which are also requisite for the attainment of salvation in this particular way. These are the sacraments of baptism and of penance. Both of these are necessary for salvation, and are necessary as means established by God for the attainment of this end.
In other words, there is no reason apart from the positive will of God why a washing with water performed while the person administering the sacrament is uttering a definite formula should be necessary for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. There is no reason apart from the positive will of God why a man who is guilty of mortal sin committed after baptism cannot have this sin forgiven except by means of a judicial absolution pronounced by an authorized priest. Neither the baptism nor the sacrament of penance is by its nature part of the supernatural life itself in the way that sanctifying grace and charity are.
Similarly, it is by the positive will of God that men must be within an organized society if they are to attain the forgiveness of their sins or final blessedness. Faith, hope, and charity are actually parts of the supernatural life. It is impossible to have the life of grace in this world, and thus, of course, impossible to pass from this world with the life of grace, apart from faith, hope and charity. The life of the Beatific Vision in Heaven necessarily involves charity.
This must be distinctly understood: in any event the men and women who accept the supernatural teaching of God with the act of divine faith, and who love God with the supernatural love of friendship which we call charity, would belong to the kingdom of God on earth. These people would be, in any event, the individuals who subjected themselves to God's supernatural law, and thus would belong to His supernatural kingdom in this world. But, as a matter of fact, God has willed that His supernatural kingdom should be a fully organized society. In His mercy He has decreed that there is no other social unit which can in any way properly be called His kingdom, or His ecclesia. If a man is going to belong to God's supernatural kingdom on earth at all, he is thus going to belong in some way to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society over which the Bishop of Rome presides as the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
(8b) The Suprema haec sacra then brings out the fact that, in the merciful designs of God's providence, such realities as the Church itself and the sacraments of baptism and penance can, under certain circuмstances, bring about the effects which they are meant to produce as means necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation when a man possesses them only in the sense that he desires or intends or wills to have or to use them. Obviously the text cannot be understood unless we realize what the "certain circuмstances" mentioned in the text really are.
Basic among these circuмstances is the genuine impossibility of receiving the sacraments of baptism or of penance or of entering the Church as a member. It is quite clear that if it is possible for a man to be baptized, to go to confession and to receive sacramental absolution, or really to become a member of the true Church, the man for whom this is possible will not attain to eternal salvation unless he actually avails himself of these means. But, on the other hand, should the actual employment of these means be genuinely impossible, then the man can attain to eternal life by a will or desire to employ them.
Here, of course, we must distinguish sedulously between the order of intention and the order of mere velleity. What is required here is an effective desire, an effective act of the will, as distinct from a mere complacency or approval. A non-member of the Church can be saved if he genuinely wants or desires to enter the Church. With that genuine and active desire or intention, he will really become a member of the Church if this is at all possible. If it is not possible, then the force of his intention or desire will bring him "within" the Church in such a way that he can attain eternal salvation in this company. An inherently ineffective act of the will, a mere velleity, will definitely not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation.
As the text of the Suprema haec sacra reminds us toward the end of its doctrinal section, the desire or intention of using the means established by God can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation only when this act of the will is enlightened by true supernatural divine faith and animated by genuine charity. This, of course, holds true, not only for the intention of entering the Church, but also for the desire of the sacraments of baptism and penance - which desire may suffice for the forgiveness of sin when the sacraments themselves are not available.
The expression "a general help to salvation (generale . . . auxilium salutis)" applied to the Catholic Church in the text of the Holy Office letter describes the Church as something which, by God's Own merciful decree, is a means of salvation meant for and necessary for all men without exception. It is definitely not necessary for salvation only to those who have heard of it. It is not necessary merely for those who seek to live in the higher levels of the spiritual life. It is a means and a help meant for and requisite for all men without exception.
Thus, in the words of the Holy Office docuмent, "in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually (reapse) as a member, but it is required that he be united to it at least by intention and desire (voto et desiderio)".
Previous paragraphs of the Holy Office letter had brought out the validity of two distinctions, long contained in the traditional works of Catholic theology, but never before stated so explicitly in an authoritative docuмent of the Holy See. The first was the distinction between the necessity of means and the necessity of precept. The second was the distinction of belonging to the Church in re and in voto. This second distinction is used, in theology and in the text of the Suprema haec sacra, in explaining how the Church is a means genuinely necessary for all men for the attainment of eternal salvation.
The present paragraph explains the distinction between the explicit and the implicit votum of entering the true Church, and teaches that even the implicit votum can be effective for the attainment of eternal life. It teaches that "this desire [of entering the true Church as a member] need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but, when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit intention, which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
It is to be noted here that, according to the language of the Suprema haec sacra and of all the other authoritative docuмents which have dealt with this matter, the desire of entering the Church does not give a man anything like "a real though incomplete membership in the Church." [Cf. Henry St. John, O.P., Essays in Christian Unity: 1928-1954 (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1955), p. 139.] Those who, like Father St. John, speak in this way, simply fail to take the meaning of the expressions in the Church's docuмents into consideration. A man who intends or wills to enter the Church is really not a member of it in any way whatsoever. If he were already a member, his desire would be absurd.
The Suprema haec sacra describes an explicit desire of entering the Church as something found in catechumens. The catechumen is the adult preparing to enter the true Church of Jesus Christ through the reception of the sacrament of baptism. His desire is said to be explicit because he has a clear and distinct (though not necessarily in any way adequate) knowledge of the society he seeks to enter. In other words, he is a man who knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ and who wants to become a member of that Church through the reception of baptism.
On the contrary, a man has only an implicit desire when he wants a thing but does not realize definitely what it is that he desires. The word "implicit" has the sense of something "folded in". When a man desires an objective which cannot be obtained without the attainment of something else, and does not have any clear and distinct awareness of this other thing, he is said to have an implicit desire of this latter.
The Suprema haec sacra states explicitly that it is possible for a man to be saved if he has only an implicit desire of entering the Catholic Church. Thus it teaches that a man can attain the Beatific Vision without having had any definite and explicit knowledge of the Catholic Church during the course of his lifetime in this world.
In this paragraph the Holy Office docuмent cites the passage in the encyclical Mystici Corporis dealing with membership in the Church, the genuine supernatural kingdom of God of the New Testament. In this context it is interesting to note that the text of the Mystici Corporis does not imply that there is some other sort of real though incomplete membership possessed by persons who do not have the qualifications mentioned here. The encyclical is teaching about those who actually (reapse) are to be counted as members of the Church. It insists that only these people who have the qualifications mentioned are to be enumerated reapse as members. All others, then, simply are not members.
Furthermore, this does not by any means imply that the word "reapse"in the text of the Mystici Corporis is a mere redundancy. If this were so, words like "genuinely" and "truly" would not be part of any real vocabulary. Moreover, the word "reapse" as it is used here connects this teaching of Pope Pius XII with the traditional doctrine of the Catholic theologians who distinguished between belonging to the Church "in re,"that is, as a member, and belonging to it "in voto," that is, by a desire or intention to enter it as a member.
The following paragraph shows that the Mystici Corporis had taught very clearly that there is a possibility of salvation for those non-members of the Catholic Church who desire to enter this company with a desire that is merely implicit. In the encyclical, the Holy Father had stated that these people could not be secure about their own eternal salvation, and had given reasons to justify this assertion. Obviously, then, he had unmistakably implied that there really is a possibility of eternal salvation for these individuals.
The Suprema haec sacra shows that the text of the Mystici Corporis, particularly those sections of the encyclical mentioned in the Holy Office letter, reproves two mutually opposed errors. The first error condemned in the Mystici Corporis is that according to which a man who has merely an implicit desire of entering the Catholic Church is in a situation in which it is impossible for him to attain to his eternal salvation. The second error proscribed is that which holds that men can be saved equally in every religion. Those who taught either error after the publication of Mystici Corporis were guilty of ignoring or defying the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, teaching in his ordinary doctrinal activity or magisterium.
Most of the translations of the Suprema haec sacra render "aequaliter"into "equally well". I do not consider these two expressions exactly equivalent in the context of the Holy Office letter. The Mystici Corporisteaches by clear implication and the Suprema haec sacra teaches quite explicitly that men may be saved only "within" the Catholic Church. They can be "within" this society so as to obtain salvation in it either as members of this organization or as people who seek truly, even if only implicitly, to join it. There is no other religion "within" which men may attain the Beatific Vision. It would be a gross understatement to say that men cannot be saved "equally well" in every religion. The only one within which they can attain their ultimate supernatural end is that of the Catholic Church. Thus, it would seem that the meaning of the Latin "aequaliter" in its context in the Holy Office letter, is best expressed in English by the term "equally," rather than by "equally well".
In some ways this last paragraph in the doctrinal section of the letter Suprema haec sacra contains its most important contribution to the section of sacred theology that deals with the Church's necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation. Here the Holy Office insists that it is a mistake to think "that any kind of intention of entering the Church is sufficient in order that one may be saved." It states that no desire of entering the Church can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation unless it be animated or informed by perfect charity and enlightened by supernatural faith.
The expression "perfect charity," here in the context of the Suprema haec sacra, means a genuine and supernatural love of friendship for God based on the awareness of divine faith. It is, in other words, a love of God known as He has told us about Himself in the content of divine public revelation. In the love of charity, as distinct from the merely natural love of God which definitely does not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation, there is a love of friendship for God known, at least in a confused way, in the Trinity of His Persons.
This charity is distinct from the supernatural affection of hope, in which man loves the Triune God as man's own ultimate Good. It is distinct from the initial love of which the Council of Trent speaks, in that this charity is a love of benevolence and of friendship, founded on a common possession. This common good is the divine nature itself, which is the Godhead, and which is shared by the person who lives the life of sanctifying grace.
The Holy Office letter also teaches that "no implicit intention can produce its effect [of eternal salvation] unless the man has supernatural faith." Here it is imperative to remember that the docuмent speaks of that faith which is defined by the Vatican Council as "the supernatural virtue by which, with the impulse and aid of God's grace, we believe the things He has revealed to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth, seen in the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself revealing, Who can neither be deceived nor deceive." This is the faith which the same Vatican Council described as "the beginning of human salvation".
In the text of the Suprema haec sacra we are reminded that the need for this supernatural faith holds true even where there is merely an implicit desire to enter the Church. In other words, it is possible to have a man attain salvation when he has no clear-cut notion of the Church, and desires to enter it only insofar as he wills to do all the things God wills that he should do. The desire to enter the Church can be implicit in the desire to please God and to achieve salvation. But, at the same time, there must be some explicit supernatural truth, actually revealed by God and actually accepted as true on the authority of God revealing, on the part of every man who attains eternal salvation.
When the desire is merely implicit, then a man's faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit. The point made here by the Holy Office letter is precisely that there must be some definite and explicit content to any act of genuine supernatural faith. If a man is to be saved, he must accept as true, on the authority of God revealing, the teaching which God has communicated to the world as His public and supernatural message.
The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:
1. The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.
2. This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church's magisterium.
3. The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.
4. The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.
5. Because the Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept, any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation.
6. The Church is a general and necessary means for salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God's Own institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such.
7. In order that a man may be saved "within" the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved.
8. It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit.
9. The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion.
10. No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity.
Any rational Catholic who is capable of reading and understanding the above chapter from Monsignor Fenton will be thoroughly convinced that the Feeneyites commit a grave error on the Church's teaching on salvation. Dear sweet Jesus, please assist the Feeneyites to embrace the fullness of truth.
-
(x x ) :barf: (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=dog+returning+to+its+vomit)
-
(x x ) :barf: (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=dog+returning+to+its+vomit)
Feeneyites hate official docuмents of the Church approved by a valid Pope. Yuck.
-
Feeneyites hate official docuмents of the Church approved by a valid Pope. Yuck.
Except that Supreme Haec is not official (aka "authentic"), nor is there any evidence except within the letter itself that it was approved by Pius XII. SH is very likely a complete fraud, a hoax perpetrated by Cushing and his allies. Cushing waited for a couple of years after it was allegedly written to publish it, until JUST after the Cardinal who allegedly signed it passed away. So it's highly likely that this docuмent was, at the very least, heavily edited, and most likely fabricated out of thin air. That would explain why it never made it into the AAS.
-
Ladislaus is an automatic yuck. With yuck written all over it.
-
Ladislaus is an automatic yuck. With yuck written all over it.
So the mental breakdown continues.
-
Ladislaus is an automatic yuck. With yuck written all over it.
Do you sit down to pee? That should be your indian name. For crying out loud.
-
So the mental breakdown continues.
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
:barf: Ladislaus :barf:
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
When will you be all the way broken down?
-
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
:barf: Ladislaus :barf:
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
When will you be all the way broken down?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7v_6uGlWQ&list=PLxDix-dZt_JHgjCGrwoP4xqrgq5l3wMQD
-
I have a copy of Architects of Confusion in my hand. Below is a scanned copy of it, found on line. Pages 7 - 13 will answer your question. Anyone who doesn't want to be considered as unfair, will at least give St. Benedict Center this chance to explain "what happened" and about "the letter." The whole pamphlet is worth reading, and it is the better way to approach the subject. But at least read 7-13. The anti-Feeney haters don't stop to consider that his persecutors are the same who later went after ABL. It does not occur to them that just MAYBE there is something TO Fr. Feeney - that maybe "the finger of God" is there.
https://hieronymopolis.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/architects-of-confusion-scanned-by-hieronymopolis.pdf
-
I have a copy of Architects of Confusion in my hand. Below is a scanned copy of it, found on line. Pages 7 - 13 will answer your question. Anyone who doesn't want to be considered as unfair, will at least give St. Benedict Center this chance to explain "what happened" and about "the letter." The whole pamphlet is worth reading, and it is the better way to approach the subject. But at least read 7-13. The anti-Feeney haters don't stop to consider that his persecutors are the same who later went after ABL. It does not occur to them that just MAYBE there is something TO Fr. Feeney - that maybe "the finger of God" is there.
https://hieronymopolis.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/architects-of-confusion-scanned-by-hieronymopolis.pdf
.
The Father Feeney haters in the Vatican knew even 13 years ahead of time that he would be the obstacle standing in the way of their Vatican II, and he must be removed. He was the darling of all the elementary parochial schools in the 1940's, when Father Feeney's framed photograph was prominently hung on the classroom walls, right next to the picture of Pope Pius XII. To them, these two images were the image of the Church to American Catholic children. Then one day, without so much as an official announcement, suddenly his pictures were removed from the classrooms all over America. The word was out! Father Feeney had lost favor with the highest office of the Church. He was excommunicated!!
.
So he lived out his life quietly doing what good he could with his friends close by, until one day a knock came at the door. It was 3 priests from the diocese, who had been sent to set things right. They were invited inside and stood there with Fr. Feeney and several witnesses. It had been decided on high that it wouldn't be right to let Fr. die without being reinstated, so these 3 priests asked him if he would like to pray the Creed with them. He suggested the Athanasian Creed, in Latin, which was well known by all since all priests in those days were accustomed to reciting it every Sunday in their Breviary prayers.
.
Curiously, the very issue over which he had been so-called disciplined in the first place, EENS, is how the Creed begins and ends:
.
QUIcuмQUE vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
WHOEVER wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
.
They had to get rid of the popular assent to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in order for Vatican II to get off the ground, and Fr. Feeney, who defended EENS with all his strength, was simply in the way of progress. The reason for his punishment had never been more than a vague accusation of "disobedience" because they couldn't legally accuse him of doctrinal error when he was DEFENDING the integrity of doctrine.
.
By the way, so-called baptism of desire was never so much as a topic on the table, officially, for it is not defined, it is not doctrine, and it is not a matter of canonical process.
.
To prove how ridiculous the whole affair was, after Vatican II did its damage and the New Mass was trotted out and taken in wholesale like the Trojan Horse it was, they re-instated Fr. Feeney using the same Creed that he had defended all along, which defense was at the root of his having been so-called excommunicated. In other words, the so-called excommunication was a dog-and-pony show, a farse, a fake and a fabrication. But that didn't matter because they got what they were after, Vatican II with Fr. Feeney out of the way.
.
-
LoL serves a very good purpose, that is provided one sees in him the damage done to him by listening to false prophets which, in his case, are mainly certain "well respected" theologians of which Fr. Fenton is certainly one, while necessarily blocking out the true teachings of the Church almost entirely.
If people use him as an example of who and what to avoid and of what not to do, they will have learned something of great value from him, lest in not avoiding those same things, they end up like him.
Not an easy thing to say, but it needed to be said.
-
LoL serves a very good purpose, that is provided one sees in him the damage done to him by listening to false prophets which, in his case, are mainly certain "well respected" theologians of which Fr. Fenton is certainly one, while necessarily blocking out the true teachings of the Church almost entirely.
If people use him as an example of who and what to avoid and of what not to do, they will have learned something of great value from him, lest in not avoiding those same things, they end up like him.
Not an easy thing to say, but it needed to be said.
Indeed.
-
Ladislaus,
Suspicious regarding the publication and the unofficial nature of it. But doesn't Cardinal Ottaviani's name appear on it?
Allegedly, as second rubber-stamp signature. Oh, I'm absolutely suspicious. Put together the circuмstantial evidence.
1) never published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Why? Because it would then most certainly have been reviewed by Pius XII. Canon Law at the time stipulated that only those docuмents which appear in AAS are to be considered "authentic" Magisterium. And that's due to the possibility of fraud, to make sure that things came out in a Vatican-controlled publication vs. Cushing's local rag that he controlled.
2) allegedly issued on August 8, 1949. But then not published until September 1952. Why? Father Feeney was a thorn in Cushing's side for 3 years while Cushing sat on this docuмent? Well, in the meantime, the alleged author of this letter, Carindal Marchetti Selvaggiani had passed away. So he could never be questioned about its authenticity.
-
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. TheSuprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter. Fenton
-
Allegedly, as second rubber-stamp signature. Oh, I'm absolutely suspicious. Put together the circuмstantial evidence.
1) never published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Why? Because it would then most certainly have been reviewed by Pius XII. Canon Law at the time stipulated that only those docuмents which appear in AAS are to be considered "authentic" Magisterium. And that's due to the possibility of fraud, to make sure that things came out in a Vatican-controlled publication vs. Cushing's local rag that he controlled.
2) allegedly issued on August 8, 1949. But then not published until September 1952. Why? Father Feeney was a thorn in Cushing's side for 3 years while Cushing sat on this docuмent? Well, in the meantime, the alleged author of this letter, Carindal Marchetti Selvaggiani had passed away. So he could never be questioned about its authenticity.
Don't forget this guy in the woodpile...
(https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.CDHks9-DVGmrJMvDC-zuUwEsEs&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
-
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton
-
This is the third or fourth time I'm posting this article on this forum. But then, I'm with Fr Feeney all the way!
JAMES CARROLL
What would Cardinal Cushing do?
By James Carroll | December 19, 2005
THE DISPUTE OVER whether it is appropriate, in public, to say ''Happy Holidays" instead of ''Merry Christmas" puts me in mind of Cardinal Richard Cushing. He was my boss when I was Catholic Chaplain at Boston University, and I loved him. In the early 1950s, Cushing forced one of the great changes in Catholic theology by excommunicating Father Leonard Feeney for preaching on Boston Common that ''there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." As is true of today's exclusivist claims for a Christian meaning of ''the holidays," there was an undercurrent of antisemitism in Feeney's exclusivist claim for Catholicism. An inch below all Christian triumphalism is special contempt for Jєωs who reject the idea that Jesus is the saving Messiah. Robust assertions of the one meaning of the winter celebration are a version of the claim that there is only one way to God. Jєωs may not accept that, but how dare they forbid the dominant Christian culture from celebrating its dominance.
What made Cushing's excommunication of Feeney astounding was that Feeney's line had been official Church teaching for most of a thousand years: No salvation outside the Church. Feeney confidently appealed to Rome, forcing the Vatican to take a position on the question. When the Vatican supported Cushing and upheld the excommunication of Feeney, the long-held doctrine of Catholic exclusivism was overturned.
Why was Cardinal Cushing the one to force this change? Cushing's sister Dolly, an MTA toll taker, was married to Dick Pearlstein, who, with his father Louis, ran the haberdashery that was on the way to being Boston's best men's store, which it remains. Cardinal Cushing was often in the Pearlstein home, and he had ample occasion to experience his brother-in-law's innate goodness. There came to be no question for Cushing as to whether his sister's beloved husband was beloved of God. That Dick Pearlstein was Jєωιѕн -- a ''non-Catholic" -- ceased to have decisive meaning, and Cushing began to take Feeney's ''orthodox" preaching as an insult to his own family. An abstract principle of theology was upended by the sort of cross-group interaction that had become common in America.
There are religious reactionaries in the world who are suspicious of America precisely because of the religious and cultural elbow-rubbing that occurs in neighborhoods and even families. Upholding the conscience of each individual means refusing to let a particular appeal to conscience dominate public space. But critics can see in such protected plurality of doctrine the top edge of the slippery slope toward ''relativism." One need not share that worry to acknowledge that when people of differing beliefs begin to treat each other with full respect, an elbow-rubbing of the mind always follows.
To encounter another approach to the great questions of transcendence is inevitably to rethink one's own approach. Competing truth claims can yield when emphasis shifts from the claim itself to the idea of truth behind it. The question, ''Is there one way to heaven?" can become the question, ''What is 'heaven' anyway?" Soon enough, believers can recognize that the truth of their own tradition does not depend on the falsehood of someone else's. The next thing you know, as in Cushing's encounter with the Pearlsteins, basic doctrines of one's own tradition may go out the window.
The move in recent years to ''relativize" the Christian character of America's winter holiday, making room not only for ancient Jєωιѕн observance of Hanukkah and recently invented African-American celebration of Kwanza, but also for open acknowledgement of the prehistoric Solstice origins of the entire enterprise -- all of this is the calendar's version of the neighbor-respecting change that Cardinal Cushing initiated within Catholicism. As was true in that most absolute of religions, the result of such repudiation of claims to supremacy is not the mindless watering-down -- Jesus morphing into Rudolph -- of which reactionaries warn, but a renewed embrace of one's own deepest convictions.
As a Christian whose faith is braced by American pluralism, I recognize in the derided word ''holidays" a welcome signal of respect for everyone. The word means holy. How easy, therefore, to imagine it from Cardinal Cushing, who showed that holiness means respect. Happy Holidays.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe. (http://file:///C:/Users/Nestor/Downloads/What%20would%20Cardinal%20Cushing%20do%20%20-%20The%20Boston%20Globe_files/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif)
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
More:
-
Why do Feeneyites hate authoritative letters? Because they are heretics.
Accordingly the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session, held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the August Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline, be given.
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 judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (magisterium).
-
Why do Feeneyites hate authoritative letters? Because they are heretics.
Sure we're heretics if you're, for example, a Protestant.
-
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach there is also contained that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For Our Saviour gave the things that are contained in the deposit of faith to be explained by the ecclesiastical magisterium and not by private judgments.
-
With all due respect Torn, Ottaviani was really only conservative with the Traditional Mass. With regards to EENS and V2 he was just like all the others.
Wrong if he disagrees with the heretical feeneyites like all the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes who do.
-
Ok. But his being alive when published is relevant to the letter being a "fraud."
The HOL is very bad news in context especially, as is the whole "Boston Heresy" affair, that's certain.
It is an authoritative letter approved by Pius XII which all Catholic must give their ascent to under pain of mortal sin. Feeneyites make up lies about it because they have to in order to hold on to their heresy.
-
LoT now loves Cushing, whereas he would condemn him as a manifest heretic were he alive today.
In fact, LoT, why wasn't the Episcopal See of Boston vacant due to manifest heresy?
This guy was an early promoter of ecuмenism and religious indifferentism.
-
This letter, known as the Suprema haec sacra, from the first three words of the Latin text, is of unique importance for the study of this section of sacred theology. It is an instruction of the Holy Office, sent out with the approval and at the bidding of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. As such, it is an authoritative, though obviously not an infallible, docuмent. That is to say, the teachings contained in the Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular docuмent. Nevertheless, the fact remains that much of its teaching - indeed, what we may call the substance of its teaching - is material which has appeared in previous docuмents emanating from the Sovereign Pontiff himself and from Oecuмenical Councils of the Catholic Church. Fenton
-
LoT now loves Cushing, whereas he would condemn him as a manifest heretic were he alive today.
In fact, LoT, why wasn't the Episcopal See of Boston vacant due to manifest heresy?
This guy was an early promoter of ecuмenism and religious indifferentism.
Here comes yuck.
-
But when this thing was published, Card. Ottaviani was I think prefect of the Holy Office - definitely alive and a vital force in the Church.
Yeah, but his was a secondary signature (if it was indeed legitimate) in the role of "Assessor", whatever that meant.
-
Here comes yuck.
Very mature of you. Now answer the question:
Why wasn't the Episcopal See of Boston vacant due to manifest heresy?
-
Oh! how soon they forget. Fr. Feeney was making record numbers of inconvenient converts and preaching publicly against the Jєωs. The eccuмenist Cushing could not abide that,or Father Feeney exposing the heresy throughout the diocese which were the docuмented activities which prompted retaliation and suppression.
This followed the silencing and supression of the great Father Coughlin, by the prior politically sensitive pope and using Pacelli as the instrument of that injustice. They were both afraid of the Jєωs.
There were much bigger issues were at play here than liberal pet heresies. Opposition resistance were being systematically eliminated, as well as the masonic operatives at work laying the groundwork for Vatican II and the revolution.
-
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches us that in this matter we are dealing with a most strict precept of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly ordered His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.
Now, not the least important among the commandments of Christ is that one 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, through whom He Himself governs the Church on earth in a visible manner.
-
Also, the incompetent and ignorant LoT claims that assent must be given to any "authoritative" docuмent. We've discussed this before, but the ignoramus doesn't understand the notion of "assent" to these docuмents, and departs from his own hero Fenton's explanation for what this means.
There's no mortal sin (or sin at all, but rather virtue) in respectfully disagreeing with even an authoritative non-infallible docuмent if it happens to contradict Catholic principles. But, then, LoT claims that these are all effectively infallible.
Problem is that, by virtue of its not having appeared in AAS, this docuмent isn't even guaranteed "authentic" by the Church.
-
Oh! how soon they forget. Fr. Feeney was making record numbers of inconvenient converts and preaching publicly against the Jєωs. The eccuмenist Cushing could not abide that,or Father Feeney exposing the heresy throughout the diocese which were the docuмented activities which prompted retaliation and suppression.
This followed the silencing and supression of the great Father Coughlin, by the prior politically sensitive pope and using Pacelli as the instrument of that injustice. They were both afraid of the Jєωs.
There were much bigger issues were at play here than liberal pet heresies. Opposition resistance were being systematically eliminated, as well as the masonic operatives at work laying the groundwork for Vatican II and the revolution.
Feeney right.
Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Innocent II, Innocent III, Alphonsus, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII wrong. :facepalm:
Bye bye Feeneyites.
-
Also, the incompetent and ignorant LoT claims that assent must be given to any "authoritative" docuмent. We've discussed this before, but the ignoramus doesn't understand the notion of "assent" to these docuмents, and departs from his own hero Fenton's explanation for what this means.
There's no mortal sin (or sin at all, but rather virtue) in respectfully disagreeing with even an authoritative non-infallible docuмent if it happens to contradict Catholic principles. But, then, LoT claims that these are all effectively infallible.
Problem is that, by virtue of its not having appeared in AAS, this docuмent isn't even guaranteed "authentic" by the Church.
Suprema haec. LoT's fault. Bad boy.
-
No he didn't. Prove it.
:facepalm:
Again the burden of proof is being unreasonably shifted. The letter came from the Holy Office to the Abp. of Boston. It was made public in 1953 and appeared in several periodicals. It was included in Denzinger. The docuмent says His Holiness approved the doctrine set forth therein. The Pope is the head of the Holy Office. We have met our burden of proof. If anyone believes that Pius XII did NOT approve this, the burden of proof is now on him to prove it. Not on us.
-
"As regards the doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), always remain provincial conciliar (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) is understood when, for example, the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) approves a Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm). They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) inherent in the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), since the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions are given by Choupin ("Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège", Paris, 1907, ch. ix, sect. 9). The disciplinary Decrees of the Holy Office have the same force as those of the other congregations, that is, they are binding upon all the faithful if they be formally universal; and they are binding only upon the parties interested if they be merely personal, e.g., judicial sentences, which are law for the parties in the case. If, however, they be personal and at the same time equivalently universal, canonists are not fully agreed as to their force. For a discussion of this point see Choupin, op. cit., ch. iv, sect. 33, and the authors cited by him."
via "newadvent.org" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm)
-
"As regards the doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), always remain provincial conciliar (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) is understood when, for example, the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) approves a Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm). They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) inherent in the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), since the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions are given by Choupin ("Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège", Paris, 1907, ch. ix, sect. 9). The disciplinary Decrees of the Holy Office have the same force as those of the other congregations, that is, they are binding upon all the faithful if they be formally universal; and they are binding only upon the parties interested if they be merely personal, e.g., judicial sentences, which are law for the parties in the case. If, however, they be personal and at the same time equivalently universal, canonists are not fully agreed as to their force. For a discussion of this point see Choupin, op. cit., ch. iv, sect. 33, and the authors cited by him."
via "newadvent.org" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm)
Good post. Thank you.
-
Do you give a true internal and sincere ascent to it?
-
Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951): Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."
But this is nothing new. The Feeneyites do not want to hear it but the objective observer understands it is true nonetheless.
-
I tend to think the letter is genuine because of Ottaviani's association with it, and it's "weight," if any, is questionable. It is certainly not binding, and I don't think it qualifies as free from error as an expression of the Ecclesia Docens - hugger mugger doesn't exactly indicate the Church teaching, and the story behind it shows hugger mugger.
From DZ PLEASE:
They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith.
Do you give your true internal and sincere assent to it as all good Catholics must? The answer would be yes or no.
-
From DZ PLEASE:Do you give your true internal and sincere assent to it as all good Catholics must? The answer would be yes or no.
Secondly, specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) is understood when, for example, the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) approves a Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm). They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm),
(.^. >>>> "AAS" <<<<<) Learn to READ and/or TELL THE TRUTH DZ P)
that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) inherent in the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), since the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of >>>> specific <<<< approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions...
-
Secondly, specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) is understood when, for example, the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) approves a Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm). They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm),
(.^. >>>> "AAS" <<<<<) Learn to READ and/or TELL THE TRUTH. DZ P)
that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) inherent in the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), since the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of >>>> specific <<<< approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions...
For crying out loud, this platform's formatting blows chunks...
-
Do you give a true internal and sincere ascent to it?
No, I am required to give true and internal assent to it.
By it I mean any act of the authentic Magisterium (from which I exclude SH).
But, in principle, indeed, Catholics must give true and internal assent to such acts of the authentic Magisterium.
Your problem is in misdefining what this "assent" entails. It's RELIGIOUS assent. Please read your hero Msgr. Fenton on the authority of Encyclicals wherein he clearly defines all these concepts.
-
Secondly, specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) is understood when, for example, the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) approves a Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm). They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm),
(.^. >>>> "AAS" <<<<<) Learn to READ and/or TELL THE TRUTH DZ P)
that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) inherent in the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), since the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of >>>> specific <<<< approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions...
Answer seems more complicated than would be from a good Catholic and rather emotional. Of course the die-hard feeneyite will not be able to answer in the affirmative regarding to a true, internal and sincere assent, but the smarter ones avoid looking more foolish with their silence.
-
Feeneyites hate official docuмents of the Church approved by a valid Pope. Yuck.
:sleep:
-
:sleep:
Agreed. It is tiring. But for the sake of those confused on the issue I will keep sharing what the Church teaches to the chagrin of the hateful and disparate Feeneyites.
-
Agreed. It is tiring. But for the sake of those confused on the issue I will keep sharing what the Church teaches to the chagrin of the hateful and disparate Feeneyites.
Sorry but you still don't get it--- There is No Such Thing as a "Feeneyite".... :laugh1:
-
Sorry but you still don't get it--- There is No Such Thing as a "Feeneyite".... :laugh1:
I do get it. A "feeneyite" is a follower of Feeney as a "sedevacantist" is one who admits a public heretic cannot be Pope. We are all sedevacantist during and interregnum and all those who deny BOD which Saint Alphonsus called de fide are some form of a feeneyite.
So yes, there is such thing as a feeneyite and this is the only traditional site where the are allowed to run rampant, though in their special little hole.
-
:sleep:
-
:sleep:
Agreed. It is tiring. But for the sake of those confused on the issue I will keep sharing what the Church teaches to the chagrin of the hateful and desperate Feeneyites.
-
edit
-
Agreed. It is tiring. But for the sake of those confused on the issue I will keep sharing what the Church teaches to the chagrin of the hateful and desperate Feeneyites.
MO is that you are the one who is full of hate-- for the Catholic religion....
MO is also that you are wasting your time is a futile effort to show that the sacrament of baptism is not required.
My suggestion is to get off the internet for a while. Go outside and get some fresh air-- try jogging or something. Call a friend and go have a beer. Maybe you should get a pet of some sort. Pius XII use to love his goldfinch Greta. :cheers:
-
A "feeneyite" is a follower of Feeney as a "sedevacantist" is one who admits a public heretic cannot be Pope. We are all sedevacantist during and interregnum and all those who deny BOD which Saint Alphonsus called de fide are some form of a feeneyite.
So yes, there is such thing as a feeneyite and this is the only traditional site where the are allowed to run rampant, though in their special little hole.
-
... this is the only traditional site where the(y) are allowed to run rampant, though in their special little hole.
He probably typed that with a completely straight face.
-
MO is also that you are wasting your time is a futile effort to show that the sacrament of baptism is not required.
The objective fact is that you are incorrect. MO is that I am not interested in YO. MO is that it is retarded to say "there is no such thing as Feeneyites" or "there is no such things as sedevacantists" when there is.
MO is you give something other than YO which would be beneficial to those seeking to learn. Like maybe some quote or quote from authoritative source such as is provided in OP.
-
He probably typed that with a completely straight face.
Do you assent like a good Catholic? If not why not?
-
:facepalm:
Again the burden of proof is being unreasonably shifted. The letter came from the Holy Office to the Abp. of Boston. It was made public in 1953 and appeared in several periodicals. It was included in Denzinger. The docuмent says His Holiness approved the doctrine set forth therein. The Pope is the head of the Holy Office. We have met our burden of proof. If anyone believes that Pius XII did NOT approve this, the burden of proof is now on him to prove it. Not on us.
But when they try to prove it you immediately reject all their attempts without even considering the merits of their arguments. You have set up a catch-22 for them.
-
Feeney right.
Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Innocent II, Innocent III, Alphonsus, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII wrong. :facepalm:
Bye bye Feeneyites.
Another moronic reply. LoH posits that all the Saints and Popes would agree with the heresies that were being taught a Boston College with the approval of Cushing in which case the see of Rome would have been been vacant for a very very long time. CI is becoming a daycare for the weak minded. :baby:
-
But when they try to prove it you immediately reject all their attempts without even considering the merits of their arguments. You have set up a catch-22 for them.
Are you a Feeneyite? I want to start a thread where I debate one Feeneyite the seems civil. You and thornpage seem to be. It gets off track with name-calling and false accusations. They hold a none-Catholic position and I learned some time ago reading what they say is usually a waste of time. So I skim alot and post truth.
They never consider the merits of the Catholic Church's teaching which I present.
I was almost a Feeneyite I have considered all the "merits" of their arguments almost ready to accept them.
-
They never consider the merits of the Catholic Church's teaching which I present.
Does this guy ever listen to himself?
There was a time when you'd be sweeping up your teeth for saying something like that face to face.
Then again, you aren't the sort to say something like that face to face.
"... which I present."
You sir, are a lying, POS heretic plain and simple.
-
MO is also that you are wasting your time is a futile effort to show that the sacrament of baptism is not required.
:applause:
-
Does this guy ever listen to himself?
There was a time when you'd be sweeping up your teeth for saying something like that face to face.
Then again, you aren't the sort to say something like that face to face.
"... which I present."
You sir, are a lying, POS heretic plain and simple.
Spoken like a true Feeneyite. :barf:
-
My suggestion is to get off the internet for a while. Go outside and get some fresh air-- try jogging or something. Call a friend and go have a beer.
Great advice. :cheers:
Unless you're married, LoT, you probably need to find a girlfriend.
-
There was a time when you'd be sweeping up your teeth for saying something like that face to face.
Yeah, this guy routinely derides the Sacrament of Baptism. In a more Catholic day, he would have received the fierce beatdown that he deserves.
-
Spoken like a true Feeneyite. :barf:
You will answer.
-
You will answer.
More barf. Yuck.
-
Yeah, this guy routinely derides the Sacrament of Baptism. In a more Catholic day, he would have received the fierce beatdown that he deserves.
Of course, and "... they never consider the merits of Catholic teaching..."
His head needs kick-starting.
-
More barf. Yuck.
MOre fαɢɢօt. "Yuck"
-
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.
The Savior not only gave the precept that all nations should enter the Church, but He also established the Church as a means of salvation, without which no one may be able to enter the kingdom of eternal glory.