Posted on 01/18/2011 4:31:08 PM PST by stfassisi
Of course this writer does not show where Fr. Feeney said this, because HE NEVER SAID IT.
There are followers of Fr. Feeney who run mass centers all over the USA (most offer the Traditional Latin Mass, but there are some that even offer the Novus Ordo), all approved by the local bishops and Rome. Thus, Rome, considers their interpretation of EENS "as it is written" to be Catholic. Rome does not call them heretics or schismatics, therefore, anyone that does, is actually putting their own personal prejudices and opinions above the Vatican authorities, and the pope.
Of course this writer does not show where Fr. Feeney said this, because HE NEVER SAID IT.
There are followers of Fr. Feeney who run mass centers all over the USA (most offer the Traditional Latin Mass, but there are some that even offer the Novus Ordo), all approved by the local bishops and Rome. Thus, Rome, considers their interpretation of EENS "as it is written" to be Catholic. Rome does not call them heretics or schismatics, therefore, anyone that does, is actually putting their own personal prejudices and opinions above the Vatican authorities, and the pope.
Yet many who use what we Lutherans would call the “Invisible Church” doctrine, which includes the current Pope, are not as clear as to what the imperfect communion means. For instance, the Catholic/Lutheran talks are conducted in a way that hints that both sides view each other as real Communions (not quite the right word, but forgive me), but both sides ecclessial structure and documents state that isn't possible.
Here is an example, with my comments. The reader can skip to my comments in big/bold VERDUGO, and thus avoid having to read this long drawn out personal opinion of Fr. Most, which contain absolutely no references to the dogmas on the subject!
The Catholic Resource Network Trinity Communications Manassas, VA 22110
INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BAPTISM by Fr. William Most
The words of the Council of Lyons speaks of those who die in original sin as going to hell. The Latin word used is , which means the realm of the dead, and need not mean the hell of the damned. As to the word , often translated as punishment, in Latin it need not mean the positive infliction of suffering, but could stand for only the loss or deprivation of some good. If unbaptized infants are deprived of the vision of God, that is a , but would not have to involve any suffering. We are certain of this from the teaching of Pope Pius IX, in , August 10, 1863: "God... in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." Of course, the infants do not have any voluntary fault. Hence they cannot be in the hell of the damned.
VERDUGO COMMENTS - Why does he go through this whole rigmarole when he just could have quoted dogmas on the matter. Well, the reason is because if he quoted the dogma it would ruin his paper. He has the assignment/objective of showing that unbaptized can go to heaven, but dogma is clear against that. So, he avoids and obfuscates dogma.
Tragically, Leonard Feeney cited this text of Pius IX, and, in effect, ridiculed it and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M. Sennott, , Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06): "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?." The teaching of Pius IX agrees with the teaching of St. Thomas in q.5 a.3 ad 4: "The infants are separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory, which they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods, which they do know... . That which they have through nature, they possess without pain." So when the Synod of Pistoia taught that the idea of St. Thomas was "a Pelagian fable", Pius IX, in 1794, condemned that teaching of Pistoia: DS 2626
VERDUGO COMMENTS: What a mess! I've highlighted his obfuscations , false accusations, and errors. He says:"Leonard Feeney cited this text of Pius IX, and, in effect, ridiculed it and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism". Notice he says "in effect". In other words, Fr.Feeney, NEVER said such a thing. It is Fr. Most's false interpretation of what Fr. Feeney said! Fr. Feeney NEVER "ridiculed it and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism"!
VERDUGO CONTINUES: He says Pius IX, in 1794, condemned that teaching of Pistoia. Pius IX was not even born in 1794. Errors of the Synod of Pistoia were condemned in the Condemnations in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei, " Aug. 28, 1794] .(Denzinger 1526)See it below.
Vatican II, in the Decree on Ecumenism #7 taught: "... if anything... even in the way of expressing doctrine - which is to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith - has been expressed less accurately, at an opportune time it should be rightly and duly restored." Paul VI agreed, and in Mysterium fidei Sept 3, 1965, 23-24, AAS 57, 758, said we must still not say the old language was false, only that it could be improved. Surely that is the case with the language of such texts as the Council of Lyons.
VERDUGO COMMENTS: Fr. Most quotes Vatican II, then makes his own personal opinion "Surely that is the case with the language of such texts as the Council of Lyons". From here he takes off with his personal opinions, his objective of course is his assigned mission to teach that unbaptized infants go to heaven. Something never taught by the Church, and opposed to dogma.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, in #1261, after carefully explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church, can still be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the little children come to me, and do not prevent them," added: "[this] permits us to have hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who die without Baptism."
Many theological attempts have been made in our time to find such a way. Let us offer something a bit new here: First, as St. Thomas said (III. 68.2. c): "His [God's] hands are not tied by [or:to] the Sacraments".
VERDUGO COMMENTS: Again he quotes from Vatican II,the fallible novelty that "[this] permits us to have hope that there is a way".He even says "Many theological attempts have been made in our time to find such a way. Notice he says: "in our time"! Then Fr. Most comes right out again and outright says: "Let us offer something a bit new here". This is typical of EWTN. Their "theologians" must appease the progressivists hierarchy in power today, or they are out of a job, so they must twist endlessly twist and obfuscate things to fit the orders they have.
VERDUGO - I'll skip from here to the end, as Fr. Most is just giving his personal speculations. We have the dogmas already, what do I need Fr. Most's speculations for?
Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those who died before Christ in some way. Girls of course were not circumcised, cf. III. 70. 4. C): "By circumcision there was given to boys the power to come to glory." It was enough to belong to the people of God. In a similar way, St. Paul says (1 Cor 7:14) that the unbelieving mate in a marriage of a Christian and a pagan is consecrated or made holy through union with the Christian who does come under the Covenant: "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" So they are holy precisely by belonging to a family with even one party Christian. Paul does not at this point mention Baptism as the reason for their status - he speaks of the mere fact that they belong to a family with one Christian parent. (The word holy seems to reflect Hebrew qadosh which does not mean high moral perfection, but coming under the covenant). Similarly the Jews believed that merely belonging to the People of God insured their salvation, unless they positively ruled themselves out by the gravest sins: cf. Genesis Rabbah 48.7: "In the world to come, Abraham will sit on the doormat of Gehinnom and will not allow a circumcised Jew to enter." and Sanhedrin 10.1:"All Israel has a share in the age to come." The latter text adds that there are three groups who do not have a share: those who deny the resurrection, those who deny the Law is from heaven, and Epicureans (Cf. E. P. Sanders pp. 147-82).
St. Paul insists in Romans 3:28-20 that if God had not provided for those who did not know the Law, He would not be their God. So He must have provided, and He did it through the means of faith. Could we argue that if God makes no provision for unbaptized infants, He would not act as their God? It seems yes.
Further, St. Paul insists many times over (Romans 5:15-17) that the redemption is superabundant, more so than the fall. But since God did provide for infants before Christ, if He did not do so after Christ, the redemption would not be superabundant, it would be a hellish liability for infants and millions of others. Really, Feeney and those of his followers who insist that God sends unbaptized babies to hell - along with countless millions of others who never had a chance to hear of the Church - they make God incredibly harsh, even a monster. God is not a monster, a God of that description could not exist as a God at all. So logically Feenyism calls for atheism. And in the parable of the talents (Lk 19:22) when the one servant told his master he hid the talent since he knew the master was harsh, the Master replied that he would judge the servant according to his own evidence. Since he thought the master was harsh, He would be harsh.
Also, God shows great concern for the objective MORAL order (cf. the appendix on SEDAQAH in my commentary on St. Paul). There is some reason to think He has also great concern for the objective PHYSICAL order. Thus in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16:24):
"Remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." There was no mention of sins on the part of the rich man or virtue in the poor man, just the reversal of the objective physical order. Similarly in the series of four woes in the Great Discourse (Luke 6:24-16), there is a reversal for those who were rich, for those who were full, for those who could laugh, for those who were well spoken of. There is, again, no mention of moral virtue, just of reversal of the objective physical order. Also, in the account of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) the excuse of those on the left that they did not know they did not help the Judge is not accepted.
So could it be then that God decides: These infants according to my plan should have had many goods things in life. They were deprived of all - and in the case of abortion, were cut to pieces savagely - so now there should be a reversal.
VERDUGO COMMENTS : Here is the bottom line of the article, a long drawn out road to his personal opinion, his assigned by the Trinity Communications conclusion:"So could it be then". No, Fr. Most, the dogmas are quite clear, the unbaptized infants will be deprived of the beatific vision, but, they will not suffer the pains of hell. It's dogma, and you are nobody compared to the Holy Ghost.
He could have saved the reader a lot of time and confusion, by just quoting the Catechism of Trent and all the decrees below. But, that would have resulted in a conclusion that Trinity Communications did not want.
Church Teaching on Unbaptized Infants
John XXII [From the Letter "Nequaquam sine dolore" to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321] It (The Roman Church) teaches.... that the souls....of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell: however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places. (Denzinger 493a)
The Council of Florence, 1438 1445 Decree for the Greeks But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.(Denzinger 693)
The Council of Florence, 1438 1445 Bull of Union with the Copts With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians. (Denzinger 712)
Council of Lyons IL (1274) The Souls of those that die in mortal sin or in original sin go down into Hell, but there they receive different punishments. (Denzinger 464)
Council of Carthage, (417 418) Original Sin and Grace Canon 2 If anyone should say that newborn children need not be baptized that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, so that in their case the baptismal formula for the remission of sins is to be taken in a fictitious and not in the true sense, "let him be Anathema" (Denzinger 102)
Innocent III 1198 1216 The effect of Baptism The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God but the punishment of actual is the torments of everlasting hell ... (Denzinger 410)
Errors of the Synod of Pistoia [Condemnations in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei, " Aug. 28, 1794] The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin [Baptism, sec. 3] 26.The doctrine which rejects as Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions ( which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished of with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if. by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk, false, rash, injurious to Catholic teachings. (CONDEMNED) (Denzinger 1526)
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
I have a few minutes so here is a quick response...
Ver-””What a mess! I’ve highlighted his obfuscations , false accusations, and errors. He says:”Leonard Feeney cited this text of Pius IX, and, in effect, ridiculed it and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism”.””
Actually,some of your comments are a mess and filled with obfuscations.
This is what Pius IX says about Salvation of the Ignorant...
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE from Pope Pius IX in 1863
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”- Pope Pius IX
Ver-””He says Pius IX, in 1794, condemned that teaching of Pistoia. Pius IX was not even born in 1794””
Good catch,ver.This must have been a typo and should have been Pius VI in the Synod Of Pistoria
And from Your post #3
Stf- “”Hence he(feeny) had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell.””
Ver-””Of course this writer does not show where Fr. Feeney said this, because HE NEVER SAID IT.””
Here is what Feeny said in his book The Bread Of Life...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23249154/Bread-of-Life-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney-S-J
Excerpt:”The little baby who dies without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven. He has never committed a mortal sin. But he
lacks the entrance requirement for Heaven. He will not be punished for having rejected Baptism. He will not be
accused by God of having committed a mortal sin. He will go to the essential Hell (Limbo) which is the loss of the Beatific Vision.”
And...
“If you do not receive Baptism of Water, you cannot be saved, whether you were guilty or not guilty for not having received it. If it was not your fault that you did not receive it, then you just do not go to Heaven. You are lacking something required for Heaven. You did not add your own positive rejection of the requirement so as to give you a positive deficiency. Yours is a permanent lack of something required for eternal salvation”
“”Yet many who use what we Lutherans would call the “Invisible Church” doctrine, which includes the current Pope, are not as clear as to what the imperfect communion means.””
I think From Doninius Iesus is clear ,which was written by Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI...
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
re:Excerpt:”The little baby who dies without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven.
That is the always held by the Church dogma of the faith regarding unbaptized infants. Unbaptized infants do not go to heaven, neither do they suffer the pains of hell, they are deprived of the beatific vision. Perhaps you didn’t read the dogmas at the bottom of my long posting?
You should dedicate more time to reading what I wrote before you write back. I took your thread article printed it and analyzed it in bed last night highlighting it and making notes. I focused my response on just the non-baptized infant "goes to hell" part for now, and published Fr. Most's writing on the subject. Needless to say, that likely took up like 2 hours of material gathering and writing. READ what I write and don't just answer in a few minutes. Your answer reflects your lack of study on the matter. My response focuses on the subject of the salvation of the non-baptized infants, you are quoting the non-dogmatic, fallible QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE which makes no reference to the subject matter of infants. Stick to one subject at a time.
re: (Fr. Feeney said)- Excerpt:”The little baby who dies without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven.
That is the always held by the Church dogma of the faith regarding unbaptized infants. Unbaptized infants do not go to heaven, neither do they suffer the pains of hell, they are deprived of the beatific vision. Looks like you didn't’t read those dogmas at the bottom of my long posting?
Catechism of Trent
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Take this for what it’s worth as I’m not a theologian.
But let’s take a Lutheran baptized as a child. The Baptism is valid, so by that very act the child, though Lutheran in name, becomes a member of the Catholic Church. If he dies the next day, he very likely will enter heaven.
But suppose he grows up. He is truly a member of the Catholic Church, yes, but he also does not have access to the full complement of sacraments. If he commits mortal sin, he, like all Catholics, will go to hell—but unlike Catholics he does not have recourse to valid sacramental Confession. So his contrition must be perfect—or he will be damned.
Also, is he guilty of mortal sin of heresy? Tricky. He may well hold to the Lutheran concords...but is it out of honest ignorance? Or is it out of malice? Does he know that what he believes is heretical? If not, there is no guilt. But if so, he can be damned by that alone.
I think this is what is meant by imperfect communion. The person is in fact grafted into the Church, but only imperfectly, in that he does not have at his disposal all the tools the Church has to offer.
So not only are the scriptures not to be "privately interpreted" (which means what, that one is to read the words without thinking at all?), but the documents of the Church, which are supposed to tell the Catholic how to interpret the scriptures, is also not to be "privately interpreted," or else one is still a Protestant!
What kind of religion is this? Nothing means what it says, nothing can be interpreted without appeal to an authority which likewise cannot be privately interpreted . . . this is a mess! No wonder Catholics say with a straight face that their doctrines have never changed . . . no doctrine means what it says!
At least I know now why you've never condemned evolution, Francis.
And for that matter, by a mortal sin (Lutheran's do have them, but they don't quite mean what Catholics mean).
For instance, a mortal sin is where a person makes a conscious decision to turn from God. Not just having a bad desire or temptation, or even giving in to one in a moment of weakness.
In your description, most of what is being said in ecumenical talks would be at best invalid.
Ver-””Add this to the list of sources, since I mentioned it in the long posting.:Catechism of Trent””
This theme is reiterated through the ages for Catholic’s who KNOW the faith,Ver, it’s not applied to the Invincibly Ignorant or the poor person who loves others unconditionally and has never heard the Gospel preached to them and been Baptized because either they live in a remote place in the world or if they have been presented a scarecrow by some other religion and never heard of Catholicism.
God is merciful,ver-That’s what the Church teaches and has always taught!Lumen Gentium is dogmatic in defining Salvation through love and ignorance no matter how much you reject it.
Perhaps you should read the following...
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Excerpt:
Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.
In these times, the number of infants who die unbaptised is growing greatly. This is partly because of parents, influenced by cultural relativism and religious pluralism, who are non-practising, but it is also partly a consequence of in vitro fertilisation and abortion. Given these developments, the question of the destiny of such infants is raised with new urgency. In such a situation, the ways by which salvation may be achieved appear ever more complex and problematic. The Church, faithful guardian of the way of salvation, knows that salvation can be achieved only in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Yet, as mother and teacher, she cannot fail to reflect on the destiny of all human beings, created in the image of God,[2] and especially of the weakest. Being endowed with reason, conscience and freedom, adults are responsible for their own destiny in so far as they accept or reject God’s grace. Infants, however, who do not yet have the use of reason, conscience and freedom, cannot decide for themselves. Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children, and people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian. From a theological point of view, the development of a theology of hope and an ecclesiology of communion, together with a recognition of the greatness of divine mercy, challenge an unduly restrictive view of salvation. In fact, the universal salvific will of God and the correspondingly universal mediation of Christ mean that all theological notions that ultimately call into question the very omnipotence of God, and his mercy in particular, are inadequate.
Also,Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote a very good short treatise Concerning Infants Who Have Died Prematurely
http://www.sage.edu/faculty/salomd/nyssa/infants.html
excerpt;Our remarks concern infants because enjoyment of this life belongs to human nature, but the illness of ignorance controls fleshly existence. However, the person who cleanses himself by an appropriate cure and removes the sore of ignorance from his clear-sighted soul is sincere and obtains a reward in this natural life. But the person who shuns purity of virtue and fosters an incurable illness of ignorance through deceptive pleasures becomes estranged from his true nature and does not share in life. One the other hand, a simple infant who is not ill [J.83] with regard to the soul’s eyes participates in the light; he does not require cleansing because his soul has been healthy from birth.
Why is it so hard for people to grasp this?
Imperfect contrition means that a person is sorry for what he has done because he fears Hell. It’s not a great kind of contrition, but in Catholic theology, it is enough for priestly absolution in Confession.
Perfect contrition means that a person is sorry for what he has done because he sees that he has offended against the goodness of God. If a person has perfect contrition, he can be absolved of his sins by God even outside of the Confessional. He just can’t be sure of it, since it’s an invisible process. That’s why we try to make a perfect act of contrition and then also go to confession.
I don’t think your definition of a mortal sin is a bad one necessarily. Like you said, mortal sin requires a conscious decision and the full consent of the will. It’s not clear how much consent is involved if they are being sorely tempted through no fault of their own.
It's not a mess ,the core teachings never change,they only become more defined if necessary due to growing heresies
“”There is no infallible list of infallible lists.””
There is a list of core Dogmas,red.There is no list on how these are defined through the ages,but it’s not very hard to find how things are defined in this day and age and no reason for a practicing Catholic not find the answers either through Papal Encyclicals or knowledgeable lay people ,priests,etc..
List of Dogmas
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.