Pius XII refused to make the heretic a cardinal, but John XXIII did so

Comment posted by Kelso   

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: A Question of Emphasis

Far better to hold fast to what is defined in its literal and clear sense. That is what definitions of Faith are for, to make revealed truth clear, to thereby undo what architects of confusion have done. Definitions are “irreformable,” as defined at Vatican I and always believed by the faithful. It was never defined that “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” The Church defined that ““There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) No one is saved outside the Church because the Church exists. That would negate the definition and give a NEW FORM to what has been defined, changing “outside the Church” to “without the Church, no one can be saved.” Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” not “Sine Ecclesiam nulla salus.”

If Pope Innocent were not clear enough, Pope Eugene IV made it crystal clear:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Papal Bull, Cantate Domino, 1441)

Pat, you refer to the “over-reactors” who go “full-Feeney” “condemning all who don’t have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized.”

Of course you know Father Feeney never held such a thing. Every validly baptized person is baptized a Catholic, Father taught with the mind of the universal Church. Personal rejection of Catholic teaching, Father taught, once they know of it, is a sin against the true Faith that they were infused with at baptism. Only God, taught Father Feeney, can judge their subjective state, God, repeated Father so often, will not let them die in that state if they are cooperating with grace. That is why Father Feeney had so many converts, sending many of them into religious orders. So, why the exaggerated insult? Father Feeney taught what the Church and its fathers and doctors taught concerning the means of salvation. Nor was he excommunicated for doctrine, but for “disobedience” in not going to Rome when summoned by the Holy Office. If he could be excommunicated for teaching the necessity of holding the true Faith for salvation, then so, too, would all the fathers and doctors he cited as authorities. And how could a “heretic” be reconciled while still holding his heresy, as Father Feeney did when reconciled in 1972. In fact his excommunication and all censures were lifted by his bishop with no request for any words of apology. All that was required was for him to pick any approved Catholic Creed and recite it. So, he did. He recited the Athanasian Creed which begins and ends with the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”:

“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. etc.”

Nor did the Church ever define that someone could be saved if they died “invincibly” ignorant of Christ. What had been taught, and clearly so by Pope Pius IX, was that no one would suffer “everlasting torment” for what he was ignorant of without fault, but, as Saint Thomas taught, such a one, if an adult, would suffer for other sins that he ought to have not committed.

All I can say is that it is sad to see a man like yourself misrepresent a priest who tried to defend a defined dogma that, seemingly, was an embarrassment to most of the hierarchy. As Archbishop Cushing once bombastically shouted to the press during the controversy: “No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense!” Pius XII refused to make the heretic a cardinal, but John XXIII did so.

 http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/a-question-of-emphasis#view-comments#ixzz3OhETRlDA