In his interpretations of the doctrine “no salvation outside the Church,” his prize interpretations, Fenton lays down conditions for non-Catholic salvation that are so rigid and far-fetched that practically no one can meet them. (This is to show his “terrible strength.”) However, it does not bother him that those who want to go all out for getting non-Catholics into Heaven, do so using his reasons and his authority. All the liberals need is one little loophole, which Fenton gives. Through that loophole, the liberals are able, in their need, to squeeze every Protestant and Jew in America.

Fenton's interpretations would not allow for "every ... Jew in America" to be saved, since he holds to the necessity of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as necessary for salvation.  As for Prots, I don't know what he'd have to say about then, since BoD isn't actually the right topic, since many Prots are baptized.

He can contradict it all he wants, that doesn't change what Fr. Feeney said, or make what Fr. Feeney said wrong, or make right the idea Fr. Fenton wrote as regards popes in his quote you frequently post, because what he taught as if it's a Church teaching, is in fact contrary to the dogma on papal infallibility as decreed at V1.

We were addressing the allegation made by Father Feeney's publication that Msgr. Fenton presented papal teaching as needing to be interpreted by his theological authority.  He said exactly the opposite.

You persist with your low-grade-moron-level assertions that holding to different types of infallibilities "contradicts" Vatican I.  I don't know how much longer I can suffer such stupidity.  Theologians almost universally believed in the infallibility of the Church's Universal Discipline, including the Mass, Canon Law, and canonizations ... long after Vatican I.  Vatican I did not negatively defined that the infallibility of solemn teachings was the ONLY type of infallibility enjoyed by the Church.

Nor do you untrained uneducated dunderheads understand the notion of "infallible safety".  It's nothing more than an articulation of the overall indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium, basically a denunciation of your heresies, which is why you are so prickled by it.  While no given papal teaching that does not meet the notes of infallibility defined at Vatican I is absolutely guaranteed to be free from error, a substantial body of papal teaching cannot be in error.  It's actually what you clowns keep calling "Tradition", and which is why we can rely on the teachings of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, St. Pius X that were not strictly infallible to be generally reliable.  It's due to the Holy Ghost protection over the papal Magisterium, which +Lefebvre affirmed and which you bad-willed idiots refuse to address, since you'd have to reject and refute the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre.  You're putting the focus on Fenton but ignored the elephant in the room ... namely, that +Lefebvre held the same thing.  But you're too chicken-shit to contradict +Lefebvre and so you ignore those statements, pretend they don't exist, and then change the subject while putting the focus on Fenton.

If there's anything worse than heresy, it's heresy combined with sheer stupdity.

We were addressing the allegation made by Father Feeney's publication that Msgr. Fenton presented papal teaching as needing to be interpreted by his theological authority.  He said exactly the opposite.

You persist with your low-grade-moron-level assertions that holding to different types of infallibilities "contradicts" Vatican I.  I don't know how much longer I can suffer such stupidity.  Theologians almost universally believed in the infallibility of the Church's Universal Discipline, including the Mass, Canon Law, and canonizations ... long after Vatican I.  Vatican I did not negatively defined that the infallibility of solemn teachings was the ONLY type of infallibility enjoyed by the Church.

Nor do you untrained uneducated dunderheads understand the notion of "infallible safety".  It's nothing more than an articulation of the overall indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium, basically a denunciation of your heresies, which is why you are so prickled by it.  While no given papal teaching that does not meet the notes of infallibility defined at Vatican I is absolutely guaranteed to be free from error, a substantial body of papal teaching cannot be in error.  It's actually what you clowns keep calling "Tradition", and which is why we can rely on the teachings of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, St. Pius X that were not strictly infallible to be generally reliable.  It's due to the Holy Ghost protection over the papal Magisterium, which +Lefebvre affirmed and which you bad-willed idiots refuse to address, since you'd have to reject and refute the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre.  You're putting the focus on Fenton but ignored the elephant in the room ... namely, that +Lefebvre held the same thing.  But you're too chicken-shit to contradict +Lefebvre and so you ignore those statements, pretend they don't exist, and then change the subject while putting the focus on Fenton.

If there's anything worse than heresy, it's heresy combined with sheer stupdity.

Just admit it, your "arguably-the-top theologian in the US prior to and leading up to Vatican II" was and still is part of the problem. It's educated eggheads like you that helped get us - and are helping to keep us in this mess.

V1 infallibly defines in very clear, very concise terms that any elementary student can understand, exactly when it is that the pope is infallible. Fr. Fenton teaches that popes cannot teach error. Yet you see no difference. You call me untrained, what the heck kind of training were you put through that you see no difference? Get your money back.

It's actually what you clowns keep calling "Tradition", and which is why we can rely on the teachings of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, St. Pius X that were not strictly infallible to be generally reliable.

I call BS on this.  If Fenton had meant Tradition, he should have simply used the word, since everyone knows what it means.  Instead, he used a word-salad to imply things beyond both Tradition and the extraordinary magisterium, which is simply a theological opinion.  

Just admit it, your "arguably-the-top theologian in the US prior to and leading up to Vatican II" was and still is part of the problem. It's educated eggheads like you that helped get us - and are helping to keep us in this mess.

V1 infallibly defines in very clear, very concise terms that any elementary student can understand, exactly when it is that the pope is infallible. Fr. Fenton teaches that popes cannot teach error. Yet you see no difference. You call me untrained, what the heck kind of training were you put through that you see no difference? Get your money back.

  

While no given papal teaching that does not meet the notes of infallibility defined at Vatican I is absolutely guaranteed to be free from error
a substantial body of papal teaching cannot be in error.  It's actually what you clowns keep calling "Tradition", and which is why we can rely on the teachings of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, St. Pius X that were not strictly infallible to be generally reliable.  It's due to the Holy Ghost protection over the papal Magisterium, which +Lefebvre affirmed and which you bad-willed idiots refuse to address...

If there's anything worse than heresy, it's heresy combined with sheer stupdity.

So says you, but not the Church.

What is to stop a bad Pope teaching in the Ordinary Magisterium against Tradition, against the infallible Magisterium of the past?

We already knew from the infallible magisterium that the novelties of Vatican II were contrary to Catholic teaching (whether from the extraordinary or infallible ordinary magisterium) and so our good Archbishop Lefebvre withstood the Pope to his face. Nothing becomes part of Tradition by contradicting Tradition.

And that is why Cardinal Franzelin in stating that the present consensus of the Church/the unanimous preaching of the Church/a universal present consensus alone suffices of itself, explains that this is a means of knowing absolute antiquity, "by either of these means absolute antiquity can be known", and immediately qualifies what he says by stating "but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then - says St Vincent - appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers". Apply that to Vatican II and you will arrive at the same understanding of the infallibility of Vatican II and the post Vatican II magisterium as Archbishop Lefebvre. What a great theologian he truly was, what a marvelous man of the Church God gave us.

We see here that Cardinal Franzelin believed that ultimately universality, as he explains St Vincent's understanding of that term, is not to be considered apart from antiquity, and so to arrive at a conclusion that the present day ordinary magisterium is infallible, it can in no way contradict the magisterium of the past.

Your idea here of how the Holy Ghost protects the papal magisterium is clearly erroneous and exaggerated.

It's just another example of someone being shocked by the magnitude of what has happened and throwing up his hands and saying, it's not possible, it's never happened before, he can't be Pope.

Thanks to QVD for providing the reference to Cardinal Franzelin's thesis which confirms this understanding of the infallible magisterium:
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf
(see bottom p 168, top of p169)

My understanding of "infallibly safe" or "infallible security" has always been that it's not the same thing as "infallible". It seems posters here are equating the two.

AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ENCYLICALS (catholicapologetics.info)

I pulled a couple of places where Msgr Fenton speaks of it here:


Franzelin holds that the Roman Pontiff can command all Catholics to assent to a given proposition (either directly or by condemning the contradictory statement), for either one of two different reasons. First the Holy Father can intend to define this proposition infallibly as true or as de fide. Again he can will merely to look after the security of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church has been equipped with help from God by reason of which the first sort of teaching gives infallible truth, while the second affords infallible security.

Employing the plentitude of its power, the teaching Church operates as the auctoritas infallibilitatis. Working, not to define, but merely to take those steps it deems necessary to safeguard the faith, it is the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis. To this auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis and to the teachings it sets forth, the faithful owe the obedience of respectful silence and of an internal mental assent according to which the proposition thus presented is accepted, not as infallibly true, but as safe, as guaranteed by that authority which is divinely commissioned to care for the Christian faith.

....

It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

My understanding of "infallibly safe" or "infallible security" has always been that it's not the same thing as "infallible". It seems posters here are equating the two.

Franzelin holds that the Roman Pontiff can command all Catholics to assent to a given proposition (either directly or by condemning the contradictory statement), for either one of two different reasons.

The key words are underlined above, which line up with Fenton's explanation.  The papal order/directive must be a command (i.e. binding, under pain of sin) and apply to all catholics.


Thus, docuмents such as Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (which is not a doctrinal definition, but a condemnation of errors) would be "infallibly safe".  I think we all can agree with this.

The problem is, when people start applying "infallibly safe" to such things as Pius XII's NFP comments, or his evolution comments.  Or JP2's encyclicals.  Or even the new mass.  These have never been binding, or commanded under pain of sin, and do not apply to all catholics.  ...And i've seen many on here over-apply the idea of "infallibly safe".