Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell?
#61
(05-13-2009, 01:31 PM)Bonifacius Wrote: "That's always been the Church's teaching.  It's only a "controversy" because Feeneyites are tolerated on Traditional Catholic forums."

We're also "tolerated" by the Church, as there are several orders in perfectly good standing with the Church (including a Benedictine Abbey!) that profess Fr. Feeney's beliefs. 

Being tolerated by the "Church" today is not a good thing, as it puts one in the company of gay bishops, pedophile priests, and all sorts of heretics.  The undermining of Catholic doctrine should never be tolerated. 
Reply
#62
(05-13-2009, 01:48 PM)didishroom Wrote: Watch out! He's got an "encyclopedia" on his side. Infallible pronouncements from the Magisterium be damned!

The Catholic Encyclopedia is merely summarizing what the Church's Magisterium has always taught, not what you think it has taught. 
Reply
#63
I have nothing at all to contribute, I just want to be in here when this thread INEVITABLY gets used in some kind of forum, media story or lawsuit. It's nice that we care enough about their souls to even ask, though.  ;D

That's my contribution.
Reply
#64
(05-13-2009, 01:21 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 01:09 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: Sorry, ggreg, but your speculation is erroneous; St Francis Xavier, whom the Church considers the most successful missionary since St Paul, clearly told the Japanese whom he was evangelising that their ancestors had been damned.

That's taken out of context.  St. Francis made that statement assuming that the Japanese had violated the "Divine Law" which we also call natural law, perfectly expressed in the 10 Commandments.   

And why did he assume it? Because if they had kept the natural law, then the Faith would already have been delivered to them so that they could have been saved. This is also the meaning that St Alphonsus ascribes to remote grace.
Reply
#65
Don't bother arguing with PeterII, it's like talking to a brick wall and all it leads to is plotting his demise. :)No offense, PeterII.

He will just continue to quote encylcopedias, catechisms and make ad hominum attacks against Fr. Feeney and his Order all the while ignoring infallible pronouncements from popes and councils which, if anything, only contradict his statements.

So just save yourself some time and don't bother.
Reply
#66
(05-13-2009, 02:13 PM)PeterII Wrote: Being tolerated by the "Church" today is not a good thing, as it puts one in the company of gay bishops, pedophile priests, and all sorts of heretics.  The undermining of Catholic doctrine should never be tolerated.   

No one's undermining anything.  You are setting yourself up as a judge of doctrine when the Church has already ruled that these teachings are permissible and are not heretical.  Of *all* the theological positions (for the sake of argument, I won't say "dogmas") the conciliar establishment *wouldn't* want to permit or be seen as endorsing if they thought they could get out of doing it, it is what they maintain is a "strict" interpretation of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus."  By the way, Fr. Feeney was never given a trial for his actual beliefs.  Since the 1970s, the Vatican and various bishops in the United States have said that no one is excommunicated or penalized merely for holding to the positions adopted by St. Benedict Center.  IF the relevant authorities had sufficient reason to condemn the folks in question, I'd think that false ecumenism would motivate them to appeal to that sufficient reason.  That they didn't invoke the supposedly binding Church doctrine that you say is available on the subject suggests, at the very least, that something's lacking -- the opposing viewpoint isn't dogma.  I'm not saying that this argument is a Q.E.D.-open-and-shut argument, but it's worth considering.  
Reply
#67
(05-13-2009, 02:35 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 01:21 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 01:09 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: Sorry, ggreg, but your speculation is erroneous; St Francis Xavier, whom the Church considers the most successful missionary since St Paul, clearly told the Japanese whom he was evangelising that their ancestors had been damned.

That's taken out of context.  St. Francis made that statement assuming that the Japanese had violated the "Divine Law" which we also call natural law, perfectly expressed in the 10 Commandments.   

And why did he assume it? Because if they had kept the natural law, then the Faith would already have been delivered to them so that they could have been saved. This is also the meaning that St Alphonsus ascribes to remote grace.

St. Francis is just saying that if the Japanese as a whole had sinned less, the Church would have come to them sooner.  He is not making the conclusion that no single Japanese person was saved before the arrival of the missionaries.  
Reply
#68
(05-13-2009, 03:11 PM)didishroom Wrote: Don't bother arguing with PeterII, it's like talking to a brick wall and all it leads to is plotting his demise. :)No offense, PeterII.

He will just continue to quote encylcopedias, catechisms and make ad hominum attacks against Fr. Feeney and his Order all the while ignoring infallible pronouncements from popes and councils which, if anything, only contradict his statements.

So just save yourself some time and don't bother.

It's funny to imply that the Catholic Encyclopedia and every Catechism sanctioned by authorities for the last 500 years to teach Catholics their Faith contradict infallible pronouncements.  The Modernists must have struck at The Council of Trent!
Reply
#69
Whats funny is that people insist that it is dogma despite it never being defined and every catechism and person has a different definition. I never said it was heresy to believe it so long as EENS was not denied, but everyone else has no reservations when it comes to painting Fr. Feeney and his Order as heretics.
Reply
#70
(05-13-2009, 03:45 PM)didishroom Wrote: Whats funny is that people insist that it is dogma despite it never being defined and every catechism and person has a different definition. I never said it was heresy to believe it so long as EENS was not denied, but everyone else has no reservations when it comes to painting Fr. Feeney and his Order as heretics.

Fr. Feeney and his Order or whatever have done much to obfuscate what Catholic doctrine really teaches.  They confuse the faithful to such an extent that people are wondering why the Church doesn't teach invincible ignorance, or think the matter of Justification is open to a debate.  All the catechisms teach the same thing. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)