Pope says "'Feeneyites' are NOT heretics"
#21
So you're still convinced against all evidence that the salvific nature of a desire of Baptism in place of Baptism is a doctrine of the Church even though the Church has never defined it, embraces those that deny it, and has never had a universal consensus among the Ordinary Magisterium? And now with our pope defending its biggest deniers you still stew in your stubborness. Amazing. Who needs a Church when we have Catholicmilkman?
Reply
#22
didishroom Wrote:So you're still convinced against all evidence that the salvific nature of a desire of Baptism in place of Baptism is a doctrine of the Church even though the Church has never defined it, embraces those that deny it, and has never had a universal consensus among the Ordinary Magisterium?
What does "universal consensus among the Ordinary Magisterium" mean? Universal theological consensus can change with time and as long as the Fathers don't hold it unanimously and it is not solemnly defined then it is still open to debate. The Immaculate Conception was denied but now it is Sacred Dogma, and it was even held unanimous by the Fathers, if I'm not mistaken. Solemn dogmatic definitions can be added, the truth cannot change though.

Quote:And now with our pope defending its biggest deniers you still stew in your stubborness. Amazing. Who needs a Church when we have Catholicmilkman?
I never said you cannot believe as you wish concerning this subject. The Church gives you that option as it is not yet solemnly defined as dogma. Please give me the same courtesy. As St. Augustine said "Unity in essential things, freedom in non-essential things, and charity in all things".
Reply
#23
didishroom Wrote:


With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox. (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)
�Quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs� .� There are lots of armchair inquisitors out there who should pay attention to that one.
http://catholicism.org/this-just-in-pope...es-ok.html


While we're musing through Cardinal Ratzinger's writings, perhaps we should look at the CDF Commentary on Professio Fidei which concerns revelation:

Commentary on Professio Fidei Wrote:5. The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.11
These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12
6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda".14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Okay, so perhaps we can accept the proposition that BOD and BOB are not divinely revealed dogmas.  Thus, logically you wouldn't be a heretic, if they're not dogmas (and I believe there was still discussion pre-VII about what type of censure denying BOD/BOB would merit).
However, look at the second proposition of PF.  Catholics are obliged to give firm and definitive assent to ALL teachings regarding faith and morals proposed by the Church.  These teachings are likewise infallible (however not dogmas), and a person who denied them would not be in "full communion" with the Church.
So perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger is voicing his opinion that denying BOD/BOB wouldn't merit the censure of heresy.  However, this doesn't necessarily equate to an affirmation that a Catholic can in good conscience deny BOD.  Nor does the lifting of Fr. Feeney's excommunication necessarily indicate a Vatican approval of his views. 

In 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience.  In 1988, four bishops were excommunicated for disobedience.  In 1972, the Pope absolved Fr. Feeney's excommunication for disobedience.  In 2009, the Pope absolved the Society's excommunication for disobedience.  Now, Pope Paul VI certainly didn't agree with or affirm Fr. Feeney's teachings, but simply removed a censure.  Likewise, to our knowledge, Benedict XVI doesn't agree with all the Society's beliefs.
If we automatically treat the lifting of Fr. Feeney's excommunication as an approval of his beliefs, then we might as well join in with the liberal media who think the Church now officially endorses Bishop Williamson's views on the Holocaust.
Reply
#24
However, look at the second proposition of PF.  Catholics are obliged to give firm and definitive assent to ALL teachings regarding faith and morals proposed by the Church.  These teachings are likewise infallible (however not dogmas), and a person who denied them would not be in "full communion" with the Church.
But it is not a teaching of the Church. It is a theological opinion that has been held by many saints but also contradicted by many saints. The Eastern Fathers never entertained such a view and the Western Fathers have conflicitng views on the subject, contradicting even themseleves.  
 
So perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger is voicing his opinion that denying BOD/BOB wouldn't merit the censure of heresy.  However, this doesn't necessarily equate to an affirmation that a Catholic can in good conscience deny BOD.  Nor does the lifting of Fr. Feeney's excommunication necessarily indicate a Vatican approval of his views. 
What part of "NOT HERETICS" did you not understand? Stop twisting things to suit your own agenda?

In 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience.  In 1988, four bishops were excommunicated for disobedience.  In 1972, the Pope absolved Fr. Feeney's excommunication for disobedience.  In 2009, the Pope absolved the Society's excommunication for disobedience.  Now, Pope Paul VI certainly didn't agree with or affirm Fr. Feeney's teachings, but simply removed a censure.  Likewise, to our knowledge, Benedict XVI doesn't agree with all the Society's beliefs.
Au Contrair. Pope Paul VI was quoting as saying in the L'Osservato Romano on the 5th Anniversary of the Closing of Vatican II "If we for whatever reason deny the absolute necessity of water baptism...we excommunicate ourselves from the Church."
 
As for Society "beliefs." There was never controversy over what the Society held but what they did. The Society and the pope obviously have different opinions on things but not when it comes to actual dogma.
 
If we automatically treat the lifting of Fr. Feeney's excommunication as an approval of his beliefs, then we might as well join in with the liberal media who think the Church now officially endorses Bishop Williamson's views on the Holocaust.
A heretic cannot be accepted into the Church. The very fact that the excommunication was lifted means Feeney was no heretic. And if he wasn't a heretic than that means his beliefs aren't heresy which means the theory of Baptism of Desire is just that: a theory.
 
Williamson's beliefs on the Holocust have nothing to do with Faith or Morals and thus have no bearing on his being a heretic or not.The comparison between the two is irrelevant.  

Reply
#25
What does "universal consensus among the Ordinary Magisterium" mean? Universal theological consensus can change with time and as long as the Fathers don't hold it unanimously and it is not solemnly defined then it is still open to debate.
Then you have just admitted that Baptism of Desire is not dogma. The Eastern Fathers never taught it and the Western Fathers contradicted their individual selves on the matter in their own writing. Augustine at one point says unbaptized catechumens are damned and at another point, they are saved. There was no cosnensus on this matter by the Fathers of the Church,.
 
 
 
Reply
#26
didishroom Wrote:However, look at the second proposition of PF. Catholics are obliged to give firm and definitive assent to ALL teachings regarding faith and morals proposed by the Church. These teachings are likewise infallible (however not dogmas), and a person who denied them would not be in "full communion" with the Church.
But it is not a teaching of the Church. It is a theological opinion that has been held by many saints but also contradicted by many saints. The Eastern Fathers never entertained such a view and the Western Fathers have conflicitng views on the subject, contradicting even themseleves.

And does revelation stop with the Age of the Fathers? I think not.

Quote:So perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger is voicing his opinion that denying BOD/BOB wouldn't merit the censure of heresy. However, this doesn't necessarily equate to an affirmation that a Catholic can in good conscience deny BOD. Nor does the lifting of Fr. Feeney's excommunication necessarily indicate a Vatican approval of his views.
What part of "NOT HERETICS" did you not understand? Stop twisting things to suit your own agenda?

"NOT HERETICS" means you're "NOT DENYING A DOGMA". The Church is very specific in Her censures. Just because Individual X is not under the censure of heresy, doesn't mean that he isn't committing a mortal sin against Faith. As I said before, I acknowledge that there was discussion pre-VII about BOD. (Note: I erred when I said St. Alphonsus's declaration of de fide was immutable). Those theologians did not doubt that BOD was true, they just disagreed about which category of theological belief to place BOD. Despite these differences, denying the doctrine would have been a grave sin in any case.

I'll leave this discussion with some food for thought...

Quote:From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy 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 refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
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 (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

Reply
#27
Wow! Great post, MeaMaximaCulpa. Good knowledge.
Quote:These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
One of the reasons why I can't deny Vatican Council II without the Church's authoritative judgment first.

Quote:6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
WOW!

Quote:Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
When was this written that it speaks of full communion?

Reply
#28
didishroom Wrote:But it is not a teaching of the Church. It is a theological opinion that has been held by many saints but also contradicted by many saints. The Eastern Fathers never entertained such a view and the Western Fathers have conflicitng views on the subject, contradicting even themseleves.  
What is a teaching of the Church then? Does all the Church have to believe it to be a teaching? What makes a undefined doctrine a doctrine that must be believed? I ask sincerely your thoughts.
 
Quote:What part of "NOT HERETICS" did you not understand? Stop twisting things to suit your own agenda?
He, a FALLIBLE Cardinal at the time, was stating his personal opinion. He may have been in error? Do you not realize this. The majority of Cardinals believe the opposite. So are you now a heretic because of their opinion?

 
Quote:There was never controversy over what the Society held but what they did.
Oh really? Now what is it in what they did is the problem that the excommunications are anulled? Enlighten us. It was what they held and continue to hold, namely, that the new forms for the Sacraments are not good in themselves for the Faith of Holy Mother Church's Children and the problematic and rash wording of Vatican II.

 
Quote:A heretic cannot be accepted into the Church. The very fact that the excommunication was lifted means Feeney was no heretic. And if he wasn't a heretic than that means his beliefs aren't heresy which means the theory of Baptism of Desire is just that: a theory.
Not being an manifest obstinate formal heretic is not incompatible with holding objective error rather than the truth. Fr. Feeney held no belief against any defined dogma but he was in error over Sacramental Theology, he could have known better but the Church was in a sad state of affairs as it was doctrinally. God looks at the heart.
Quote:Williamson's beliefs on the Holocust have nothing to do with Faith or Morals and thus have no bearing on his being a heretic or not.The comparison between the two is irrelevant.
But not all questions on Faith or Morals have been settled in the Church definitely/dogmatically, do you not realize this? This is one of those questions. The sin of heresy has to obstinate and willful denial of a defined Sacred Dogma or a doctrine that is held with certitude by the Church.
Reply
#29
didishroom Wrote:What does "universal consensus among the Ordinary Magisterium" mean? Universal theological consensus can change with time and as long as the Fathers don't hold it unanimously and it is not solemnly defined then it is still open to debate.
Then you have just admitted that Baptism of Desire is not dogma. The Eastern Fathers never taught it and the Western Fathers contradicted their individual selves on the matter in their own writing. Augustine at one point says unbaptized catechumens are damned and at another point, they are saved. There was no cosnensus on this matter by the Fathers of the Church.
DUH! I've already said that and it is clear that the Church through a Pope has yet to solemnly define it was a revealed truth (that is, dogma). That does not mean that it will not be in future. I believe it is a revealed truth (though not with absolute certitude as it is not defined as such yet) therefore my faith tells me to believe it (as doctrine but not dogma).
Reply
#30
neel Wrote:guitar masses and heretical bishops

Would you lump them in together as one and the same? [Image: smile.gif]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)