Quote from: Lover of Truth

How much hindsight did he have in 1969 when he died?  Did you know he stopped publicly writing after V2.  Are you really better qualified to judge the man more than the traditional clergy and Pius XII?  

You are not even sure the See is vacant now, would you have known for sure in 1969?  We can't be sure what he thought after he stopped writing.  Do you judge by what the posters of a Feeneyite here say about him?  If so you might want to reconsider.  That is a bit of an understatement.

All I know is that he was a theologian so he knew more about the faith than 99 percent of Catholics. I believe should have known that Vatican II was not Catholic because he knew the faith better than almost everyone else. If Vatican II was truly heretical, as most of us here at Cathinfo believe, then a trained theologian, supposedly a "great" theologian, should have been able to tell by reading the docuмents that it was heretical. I do not blame him because nearly all the Catholics in the world were also deceived but I do not call him "great". If he publicly denounced Vatican II then I would consider calling him "great" but I am not aware of him ever doing so.

That is right Matto. Not only should he have known better, a theologian so great as him should have seen it coming from many years off. The problem is as I've been saying - he preached the same ecclesiology, so how could he have foreseen or "known better"? . . .  Until it was too late that is - by then, even if he wanted to change course and preach against V2 and much of what he taught, it was too late.  

Once one takes the doctrinal position that Fr. Fenton held (and Abp. Lefebvre and all SSPX trained priests) that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, they have unknowingly undermined any possibility of opposing the new Ecuмenical Ecclesiology. In other words once one thinks that dogma is not the final definitive teaching, but must be interpreted by others, then they have opened the door to having to tolerate all interpretations, in this case on baptism of desire, all interpretations from the dogma on EENS as it is written (as the strict EENS'ers teach, like St. John  Chrysostom) all the way to the teachings of Vatican II. Any BODer that wants to limit everyone's belief to whatever he deems is the correct interpretation,  is just engaging in wishful thinking.

There are only two groups in this debate:

A) the Strict EENSers - who believe that dogma is the final definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. (and who in the case of BOD, believe that only those can be saved who are water baptized Catholics and die in a state of sanctifying grace).

B) those who believe that dogmas are a human expression open to endless theological refinement (and believe that people can be saved from a Catholic catechumen all the way to a Muslim who has no explicit faith in Christ)

Quote from: Cantarella

The Cushinguites of CI, just as their conciliar Novus Ordo counterparts, go even further than Fenton. They believe that not even is Explicit Faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (at the very least) absolutely necessary for salvation. At least we have Fenton here agreeing that the supernatural Faith required for salvation must be Explicit in at least 4 points:

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton on The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation

Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.

But the Cushiguites, in their Devil-driven campaign to destroy EENS all the way, go even further affirming that only the 2 first requirements are needed. Of course, that leads to a complete relativism of the dogma and thus, any Jew can be said to have this supernatural Faith and be saved at last minute by a vague "implicit desire".

According to you, Protestants and schismatics can be saved then? They all have explicit faith in those 4 points.

We know from the dogmatic pronouncements of Cantate Domino and Unam Sanctam that heretics and schismatics are not partakers of eternal life; and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation; therefore no, they are not saved even though they have been water baptized and have explicit belief of the aforementioned 4 points. The sins of heresy and schism place them outside the Church, the Body of Christ, and kill the sanctifying grace of their souls, which is necessary for entering Heaven at time of death.

Even St Thomas, terribly misquoted by the Cushinguites, on his work Against the Errors of the Greeks teaches clearly that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The Church has not settled with what type of necessity belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary.  

Necessity of means - see Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino and Vatican I. Those without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity cannot be saved:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." (Athanasian Creed)

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

 But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:

Quote

 In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

You can be a Cushingite.  I'll follow Aquinas.  

So according to you St. Thomas contradicts himself, he teaches necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, but also BoD without faith in Christ? That is nonsense - obviously, talking about believing in God to receive BoD he means the Most Holy Trinity, not just Rewarder God. BoD is not an exception from the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation - only those with explicit faith in the Trinity and desire for baptism can receive BoD.

According to YOU Aquinas contradicts himself.  I make the necessary distinctions.  You do not.

You've got to be joking. First you admit that Aquinas requires explicit faith in Christ for salvation, and immediately afterwards you promote Rewarder God theory (aka salvation without faith in Christ) quoting Aquinas on BoD. When Aquinas speaks about necessity of believing in God to receive BoD, he means the Trinity, not just Rewarder God, otherwise he would contradict himself.

You pit one statement of St. Thomas against the other, making them contradictory to promote the heresy of salvation without explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.

Obviously you still refuse to touch the Athanasian Creed with a ten foot pole, since it refutes Rewarder God theory by explicitly teaching that only Catholics can be saved.

At least in some cases you appear to lack basic comprehension skills.  

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The Church has not settled with what type of necessity belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary.  

Necessity of means - see Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino and Vatican I. Those without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity cannot be saved:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." (Athanasian Creed)

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

 But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:

Quote

 In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

You can be a Cushingite.  I'll follow Aquinas.  

So according to you St. Thomas contradicts himself, he teaches necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, but also BoD without faith in Christ? That is nonsense - obviously, talking about believing in God to receive BoD he means the Most Holy Trinity, not just Rewarder God. BoD is not an exception from the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation - only those with explicit faith in the Trinity and desire for baptism can receive BoD.

According to YOU Aquinas contradicts himself.  I make the necessary distinctions.  You do not.

You've got to be joking. First you admit that Aquinas requires explicit faith in Christ for salvation, and immediately afterwards you promote Rewarder God theory (aka salvation without faith in Christ) quoting Aquinas on BoD. When Aquinas speaks about necessity of believing in God to receive BoD, he means the Trinity, not just Rewarder God, otherwise he would contradict himself.

You pit one statement of St. Thomas against the other, making them contradictory to promote the heresy of salvation without explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.

Obviously you still refuse to touch the Athanasian Creed with a ten foot pole, since it refutes Rewarder God theory by explicitly teaching that only Catholics can be saved.

At least in some cases you appear to lack basic comprehension skills.  

Ad hominem is all what you have left since you are without arguments. Show me where Aquinas taught that people without explicit faith in Christ can be saved.

Father Feeney’s grave error or heresy forced further clarification and under the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII the Church clarified the issue as much as it could be clarified as it was incuмbent on them to do.  First we had the teaching of Mystici Corporis which stated:

Only those who have been baptized, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body and who have not, by reason of very serious crimes, been expelled by legitimate authority, are actually to be counted as members of the Church. The Apostle says: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." Therefore, just as, in the true assembly of Christ's faithful, there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one baptism, so there can be only one faith. Consequently, the one who would refuse to hear the Church is, by the Lord's command, to be considered as the heathen and the publican. Hence those who are in various ways separated [from the Church] in faith or rule cannot be living in one Body of this kind and cannot be living by its divine Spirit. [Denz., 2286; AAS. XXXV, 202 f.]

    And since, as We have said above, the social Body of Christ, according to the intention of its Founder, ought to be something visible, the union (conspiratio) of all its members must likewise be outwardly manifested by the profession of the same faith, the communion of the same sacraments, the sharing of the same sacrifice, and finally by the actual observance of the same laws. Moreover, it is entirely necessary that there should be a supreme head, visible to all, by whom the mutually helpful labors of all may be effectively directed to the attainment of the end proposed [for the society]. We call this visible head the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. For, just as the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, to take care of the invisible government of the Church, He likewise commissioned Peter and his successors to conduct the visible government of the Church in His Name.

    But to these juridical bonds, which are sufficient in their own line (quae iam ratione sui sufficiunt), in such a way that they far surpass the bonds of any other human society, even the highest, it is necessary to add another factor of unity by which we are most intimately joined together among ourselves and which God by reason of the three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity.

    As you know very well, Venerable Brethren, from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have entrusted even those who do not belong to the visible structure (compagem) of the Catholic Church to the heavenly protection and direction, solemnly asserting that, following the example of the Good Shepherd, We wanted nothing more than that they should have life and have it more abundantly. Begging the prayers of the entire Church, We wish to repeat Our solemn declaration in this encyclical letter in which We have praised the great and glorious Body of Christ, most affectionately inviting each and every one of them [those who are not members of the Church] to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation. For even though they may be directed towards the Redeemer's Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention (etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticuм Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur), they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here.  Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.  However his use of the term “those” does not seem to be exclusive.

As you know very well, Venerable Brethren, from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have entrusted even those who do not belong to the visible structure (compagem) of the Catholic Church to the heavenly protection and direction, solemnly asserting that, following the example of the Good Shepherd, We wanted nothing more than that they should have life and have it more abundantly. Begging the prayers of the entire Church, We wish to repeat Our solemn declaration in this encyclical letter in which We have praised the great and glorious Body of Christ, most affectionately inviting each and every one of them [those who are not members of the Church] to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation. For even though they may be directed towards the Redeemer's Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention (etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticuм Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur), they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.

He says that such people "may be directed towards the Redeemer's Mystical Body", not that they are within the Redeemer's Mytical Body. Pope Pius XII thus clearly teaches that these people who do not belong to the visible structure of the Catholic Church are still outside the Church, but can be directed to her by their unconscius desire. Pope Pius XII does not teach that they can be saved in their current state, he says they still need to be directed to the Redeemer's Mystical Body, that is to convert to the Catholic faith.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here.  Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.  However his use of the term “those” does not seem to be exclusive.

Right, so you make Pius XII contradictory to Cantate Domino and Athanasian Creed, since both teach that non-Catholic cannot be saved and that holding the Catholic faith is absolutely necessary for salvation by necessity of means. Pope Pius XII statements must be read in light of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, you read them againt dogmatic teaching of the Church, and misrepresent Pius XII in the process - nowhere does he teach that people without faith in Christ can be saved, he says that they might be directed by God to the Church (thus in their current state their remain outside the Church).

The Athanasian Creed will always condemn your heresies:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

Anyone who dies and does not hold the Catholic faith will without a doubt perish everlastingly, which part of this do you not understand?

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I read his diaries, he did not think thet Paul 6 would approve the stuff the commission put through, that Fenton vehemently opposed and tried to stop, but then Paul 6 did allow and ultimately approve it.  He came from the perspective of "well we know Paul 6 is Pope so what is approved in this council must somehow not technically be heresy or even error".  This was quite perplexing to the man, and heart-wrenching, he could not believe how many "liberal" bishops and cardinals, and priests" there were at the time.  We can look back now.

So what you are saying is that he saw the heresies of Paul VI and thought "Paul VI is the true Pope so they must not be heresies."

How is that any different from what Novus Ordo sect followers believe today? Whenever Pope Francis does something a little too liberal, they say "Well he is the true Pope so he must be right."

He was fooled just like everyone else.

Fr Fenton is one who taught "Well he is the true Pope so he must be right" in his double talking treatises, if he was fooled at all, (and I suspect he was) then he fooled himself.  

You undermine anyone who disagrees with you including God.  You will have to answer for this.