Etzelnik wrote:

Spiculum wrote:

You ask about grace. There are two kinds of grace, Actual Grace and Sacramental Grace (sometimes referred to as Habitual Grace). Sacramental Grace gives us a share in supernatural life, and is therefore necessary for salvation (one cannot attain Heaven without it), and is initially obtained only through the sacrament of Baptism.

Hmm...

This seems wrong, as the immortality of the soul and it's natural enlightenment when separated from the body cannot be truly called "supernatural". It is an entirely natural derivative of the ordering of the soul.

That it is withdrawn on the basis of a lack of belief in a non-rationalist dogma seems bizarre, to say the least. Unless, of course, I misunderstand you.

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Let me say this:  Yes, it is "natural" for the soul to live on after its separation from the body (bodily death).  But at the moment of death the soul is judged by God, and is immediately assigned to hell, Purgatory, or Heaven.  The soul that lacks Sanctifying Grace is sentenced to hell, which is "eternal death"; the soul possessed of Sanctifying Grace is either admitted immediately into Heaven, "eternal life, supernatural life", or sentenced to Purgatory for a specific period in order to undergo any needed purgation.  All souls in Purgatory will eventually be admitted into Heaven.  The soul is certainly immortal, no matter what its disposition after bodily death.
 

Etzelnik wrote:

Timocrates has disagreed with your position[.]

So has Scott, and Jeremy has at least disagreed that it's the teaching of the Church. Here I'll just add my concurrence with Timocrates's comments and elaborations.

There's a very real sense, for example, in which someone raised in Pastor Bob's Gospel Barn & Bible Emporium may never have been exposed to the genuine teachings of the Church and in any event may never have been in a position to assess them freely; he isn't for that reason alone denied salvation.

Last edited by Scott (7/08/2015 2:37 pm)

Scott wrote:

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

From the Catechism:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
 

Precisely. I've already linked to this part of the Catechism, and it's quite a sufficient reply to the Feeneyist heresy.

Precisely wrong.

Jeremy Taylor and Scott:

Your statements betray a serious misunderstanding of one of the most fundamental Dogmas of the Catholic Church -- Exra Ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).  It will probably take me several posts to unravel the confusion that has enveloped this Dogma and the great work that Father Leonard Feeney undertook to rescue it from being emasculated by Liberals, Modernists, and Progressives within and without the Church.  I hope you will bear with me and hear me out.  I promise to be as brief as possible.

l preface my remarks by calling attention to the fact that there is not, nor ever has been, a "Feeneyist" heresy.  Fr. Feeney was never charged with, much less convicted of, heresy.  Indeed he could not be, since EENS has always been held as literally true since the earliest days of the Church, by all the Saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes (several of whom have defined it infallibly), Bishops, theologians, Councils, and laymen.  Only in comparatively recent times has it become 'politically correct' to challenge the Dogma, presumably because it conflicts with the Modernist and Americanist (by "Americanist" I mean the heresy identified and condemned by Pope Leo XIII, but revived just before and during Vatican Council II by John Courtney Murray, S.J., and others) agendas (especially false ecumenism).

Furthermore, Fr. Feeney was a saintly, courageous Catholic priest who never deviated from the Faith.  By (implicitly) falsely accusing Fr. Feeney (and, incidentally, me, although I forgive you and take no personal offense) of heresy, you flirt with calumny and scandal.  Verbum sapientibus satis.

A small point:  you use the term "Feeneyist" derogatively.  First of all, the terminology normally used by both friends and enemies of the Dogma is "Feeneyite".  Secondly, if it is used in a neutral sense, as shorthand, so to speak, for someone who supports Fr. Feeney's crusade for the Dogma, then I have no great objection to the term, even though it is superfluous, since "Feeneyism" is simply traditional Catholicism.  (In fact, to be identified with Fr. Feeney is for me an honor and a pleasure.)  But I would consider someone who used the term sneeringly to be lacking in good will.

To be continued, Deo volente.
 

I have no interest in arguing over a question that I regard as having already been settled by the Church. The Holy Office condemned Feeney's clear error in 1949 in a letter to the Archbishop of Boston (Supreme Haec Sacra), the English text of which was personally reviewed by Pope Pius XII.

Feeney himself, though he was excommunicated in 1953, was later reconciled to the Church with no requirement that he recant, and I have passed no judgment whatsoever on the state of his soul. But his teaching on this doctrine was (and is) a serious (and obvious) error and I don't intend to discuss the matter further. As I said, the error is sufficiently refuted by the statement Jeremy and I have already cited from the Catechism.

(Etzelnik, the encyclical referred to in the letter is Mystici Corporus Christi, which is available in several languages at that link, though I'm sorry to say Latin is not one of them. I'd expect the Latin text to be available on the Vatican's own website but I haven't turned it up.)

Last edited by Scott (7/08/2015 2:39 pm)

Agreed (Timocrates) on all points. Incidentally, Feeney's views on this matter were too much even for some Traditionalists.

Last edited by Scott (7/08/2015 2:44 pm)