It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:59 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
 Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton) 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:37 pm
Posts: 25
New post Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Hi,

This is my first post! It's basically an "essay" about the problem I'm having with terminology (but I think more than that) when describing who is "inside the Church" and so can be saved.

I'm definitely not doing justice to the great value of Msgr. Fenton's writings, only talking about one point. To be honest, I haven't read his book thoroughly at all, and I should.
=======
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, in his book “The Catholic Church and Salvation”, sometimes calls those who are not members of the Church simply “non-members”. “Outside the Church” everyone is a “non-member”. But “inside the Church” there are not only “members”, but also certain “non-members” (recognizable only to God). A “non-member inside the Church” is someone who was “baptized by desire” (not by the Sacrament of Baptism) and of course has at least an implicit desire for membership.

Msgr. Fenton’s book is based on Papal encyclicals and the Holy Office letter “Suprema haec Sacra”. It clarifies “No Salvation Outside the Church” and “Baptism of Desire”.

But I really have trouble with his concept of “non-members” inside the Church.

I wouldn’t be writing this if Msgr. Fenton had always just said that inside the Church there are not only members, but also those who only desire membership (those “baptized by desire”). But now I’m wondering whether the phrase “non-member inside the Church”, might sometimes appropriately be replaced by “member by desire”.

The phrase “non-member inside the Church” strongly suggests someone who is a member in absolutely no sense at all. “Baptism of Desire” is baptism, in a very real sense. It seems to me that a “member by desire” would be a member, in some real sense, and not “just” a non-member “baptized by desire for membership”?

I don't, however, think that the phrase “member by desire” should often be used. Saying “member by desire” would need further explanation – usually saying “baptism of desire” is enough. But “member by desire” makes sense when explaining who is “inside” or “outside” in the context “No Salvation outside the Church”. “Inside the Church” there are no non-members, only members or members by desire.

Consider “Baptism of Desire” and “Member by Desire” together.

The Sacrament of Baptism and Baptism of Desire both have the same primary effect: Sanctifying Grace. But isn’t preserving, restoring and increasing Sanctifying Grace also the foremost Divine purpose for membership in the Church? I’m over-simplifying but am I so far from the truth? Everyone who dies in the state of Sanctifying Grace is saved, and no one else.

It seems to me that through Baptism of Desire you become a member by desire. The real significance of "member by desire" is described in what follows.

More Compelling Evidence for using the phrase "member by desire"
======================================================
The Council of Trent [Denz. 796] says that justification (a translation to the state of grace) can be effected only through the Sacrament of Baptism or a desire for it .

The Council of Trent shortly after also says [Denz. 809]:

“…Christ Jesus Himself as the “head into the members” [Eph 4:15], and ‘as the vine into the branches’ [John 15:5] continually infuses His virtue into the said justified”…

================================================
St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking of the Sacraments [III, 62, 1] says:

Article 1. Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?

I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.

================================================
Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris

Speaking of the fundamental doctrine concerning man as it may be gathered from reason and Faith he says that By sanctifying grace he is raised to the dignity of a son of God, and incorporated into the Kingdom of God in the Mystical Body of Christ.
================================================

Christ may justify us either through His instrumental use of the Sacrament of Baptism or directly through Baptism of Desire. Through Justification, through the Sanctifying Grace that it brings, we are made a member (in some real way) of Christ, and incorporated into the Kingdom of God in the Mystical Body of Christ.

Sanctifying Grace isn’t a participation in Divine life that’s apart from Christ. It’s the life flowing from the Head to its members, from the true Vine to its branches. But during our whole life we must cooperate with that grace; to preserve, restore and increase it. Without actual membership in His Visible Church, it is almost impossible to do. Nothing is impossible to God (to Christ the Head), but we dare not presume.

”Members by desire” are His hidden members; not seen by the Church as actual members, and scarcely spoken of. They are perhaps like hidden fragile twigs on His vine, ready to break. But they’re “inside the Church” and can be saved.


Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:20 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
=======
Hi, and welcome to the forum!!

Quote:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, in his book “The Catholic Church and Salvation”, sometimes calls those who are not members of the Church simply “non-members”. “Outside the Church” everyone is a “non-member”. But “inside the Church” there are not only “members”, but also certain “non-members” (recognizable only to God).

Yes that is true.
In order to clear this question, one may say:
"Inside the Church" you found both "members" and those who are "related to the Church by a desire and longing" (Mystici Corporis).
"Outside the Church", Non-members.
Quote:
A “non-member inside the Church” is someone who was “baptized by desire” (not by the Sacrament of Baptism) and of course has at least an implicit desire for membership.

Well, not necessarily those "non-members inside the Church" are those who are baptized by desire, because they may have received the sacrament of Baptism any yet not be a member, as is the case of the Protestants in general, Old Catholics, etc.


Quote:
I wouldn’t be writing this if Msgr. Fenton had always just said that inside the Church there are not only members, but also those who only desire membership (those “baptized by desire”). But now I’m wondering whether the phrase “non-member inside the Church”, might sometimes appropriately be replaced by “member by desire”.

The sentence "Member by desire" may have two different meanings, either you mean a man who wants to be a member of the Church or you are suggesting that there are two kinds of membership in the Church.
Now if you mean the first one, then there is no problem, but you have to explain the meaning, because in itself the sentence "member by desire" is ambiguous.
But in that case you`ve to realize that if you desire to be a member is because you are not a member, as if a wish to go to USA, that would mean: I`m not in USA.
Msgr. Fenton says: "The great classical Ecclesiologists frequently spoke of men being saved either trough being in the Church or through being memebrs of the Church "in voto". Later and less brillant writers tended to imagine that there were two ways of being members of the Church, "in re" and "in voto". As a mater of fact the man who is a member of the Church "in re", is really and actually a part of the true Church. He is one of the persons who compose the society. The man who is a member "in voto" is one who is in the Church in desire. In other words, he wishes to become a member of the Church. The thing desired is always an absent good. The man who desire to be a member of the Church is precsely one who does not, at the moment, enjoy the privilege..." ("Membership in the Church", AER, vol. 112, p. 303).
Now if you mean the second option , that is, that there are tho kinds of members in the Church, then we have a problem.
If those "members by desire" are real members, then at least two conclusions will follow.
a) Those members will be part of the Church and known only to God and therefore the Church would be somehow invisble.
b) The Church would have as his members those who openly reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of those who teach something against the faith, which would ruin the Unity of the Church.
Please keep in mind that these conclusions are the same of the VII, "subsists in" etc.
In the same article we read a sentence of Congar: "If we believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ... there is only one kind of recognition wich we can, theologically speaking, accord to the Christian Status of our separated brethren and the saved condition of the "good heathen", namely, the recognition that these ar in fact our brethren and in some way members of the Catholic Church". (bold mine)
Monsg Fenton comments: "...nevertheless the fact remains that membership in the Church is an indivisble reality. A man is either a member of the Church or he is not. The requisites for membership are quite visibles in themselves. If a man possesses these requisites, he is a member or a part of the Church, if he lacks them, he is not a member. It is not only misleading but false to infer otherwise" (op. cit p 294 and f.)



Quote:
The phrase “non-member inside the Church” strongly suggests someone who is a member in absolutely no sense at all. “Baptism of Desire” is baptism, in a very real sense. It seems to me that a “member by desire” would be a member, in some real sense, and not “just” a non-member “baptized by desire for membership”?

I don't, however, think that the phrase “member by desire” should often be used. Saying “member by desire” would need further explanation – usually saying “baptism of desire” is enough. But “member by desire” makes sense when explaining who is “inside” or “outside” in the context “No Salvation outside the Church”. “Inside the Church” there are no non-members, only members or members by desire.

Consider “Baptism of Desire” and “Member by Desire” together.

I think this was answered for what i said above.

Quote:
The Sacrament of Baptism and Baptism of Desire both have the same primary effect: Sanctifying Grace. But isn’t preserving, restoring and increasing Sanctifying Grace also the foremost Divine purpose for membership in the Church? I’m over-simplifying but am I so far from the truth?

Yes both have the same primary effect but what makes you a member of the Catholic Church is not sanctifying grace but rather the character of baptism.

Quote:
Everyone who dies in the state of Sanctifying Grace is saved, and no one else.

Yes everyone who dies in the state of Sanctifying grace, will be saved but because everyone who is in the state of grace is "inside the Church", either as a member or as desiring being one.


Quote:
It seems to me that through Baptism of Desire you become a member by desire. The real significance of "member by desire" is described in what follows.

More Compelling Evidence for using the phrase "member by desire"
======================================================
The Council of Trent [Denz. 796] says that justification (a translation to the state of grace) can be effected only through the Sacrament of Baptism or a desire for it .

The Council of Trent shortly after also says [Denz. 809]:

“…Christ Jesus Himself as the “head into the members” [Eph 4:15], and ‘as the vine into the branches’ [John 15:5] continually infuses His virtue into the said justified”…

================================================
St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking of the Sacraments [III, 62, 1] says:

Article 1. Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?

I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.

================================================
Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris

Speaking of the fundamental doctrine concerning man as it may be gathered from reason and Faith he says that By sanctifying grace he is raised to the dignity of a son of God, and incorporated into the Kingdom of God in the Mystical Body of Christ.
================================================

Christ may justify us either through His instrumental use of the Sacrament of Baptism or directly through Baptism of Desire. Through Justification, through the Sanctifying Grace that it brings, we are made a member (in some real way) of Christ, and incorporated into the Kingdom of God in the Mystical Body of Christ.

Sanctifying Grace isn’t a participation in Divine life that’s apart from Christ. It’s the life flowing from the Head to its members, from the true Vine to its branches. But during our whole life we must cooperate with that grace; to preserve, restore and increase it. Without actual membership in His Visible Church, it is almost impossible to do. Nothing is impossible to God (to Christ the Head), but we dare not presume.

I`ve to recognize that this sentences are difficult to grasp the meaning but this is what i`ve founded.
1) The sentence of Saint Thomas and the others, obviously cannot mean that all and only those are members of the Catholic Church who are in state of grace, because that is an heresy condemned many times by the Church, and is obviously contrary to what Saint Thomas have taught in other places.
2) Perhaps, i`m not sure, Pope Pious XI and S. Thomas are talking about "perfect members", that is, those who are in state of Sanctifying Grace insted of the members in state of mortal sin.
3) The fact that a man who is not a member is justified, doesn`t mean that he is a member of the Church, but, nontheless that grace was received through Our Lord.
4) From the text of the M. Corporis is clear that a man is member of the Catholic Church through the outward bounds, that is a) Baptism, b) Profession of the faith, c) submission to the Roman Pontiff, and d) not being under major excommunication, and not through the inward ones, faith, hope, charity, etc., of which Pope Pious XI and S. Thomas are talking.


Quote:
”Members by desire” are His hidden members; not seen by the Church as actual members, and scarcely spoken of. They are perhaps like hidden fragile twigs on His vine, ready to break. But they’re “inside the Church” and can be saved.
[/quote]
I don`t think this could be approved by Monsg. Fenton, because of what had been said above.

Please read this excellent work of Monsg Fenton http://www.catholicculture.org/library/ ... ecnum=1357 . I believe is very usefull.

In Christo et Maria Sanctissima

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Please read this excellent work of Monsg Fenton http://www.catholicculture.org/library/ ... ecnum=1357 . I believe is very usefull.


Dear Cristian,

I agree with all of your answers here, for what that is worth. :)

And of course, it is apparent that you are presenting the doctrine of Fenton and his terminology, which I also agree with.

The key to his terminology, as you seem to be aware, is that the concept "member" is a juridical/social one, which refers to the visible bonds uniting the members and parts of the Church visibly. The concept "member" as used by Fenton is not a reference to the invisible bonds which unite Christians. Fenton admirably protects the complementary truths that the Church is a visible unity outside of which no man is saved and that some men are saved even though not visibly joined to her.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
One thing I think we should clarify here, and it is very important because of the misunderstanding of both the term and the fact: "Baptism" of Desire (and of Blood) are not, in fact, sacraments. The only Sacrament of Baptism is that of water, only.

The Church has traditionally called them "Baptism" of Desire or of Blood because they are sufficient for salvation, and are called "Baptism" because of their effect, similar to Baptism (the Sacrament), which is the gaining of Sanctifying Grace for the soul concerned.

I might also remind everyone that St. Alphonsus Liguori (among others) states that a belief in the existence of "Baptism" of Desire or of Blood are De Fide, or are required to be believed by anyone who calls himself Catholic.

Lastly, I must make clear that to me, the statement in the subject of these posts, i.e. "Non-members inside the Church", seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. To me, if they are inside the Church, they are members of Her, and, conversely, if they are members of Her, then they are inside Her.

They may not KNOW they are members, and it may even appear externally, to our eyes, that they are not members, but in fact, in God's Eyes, they are.

This is a subtle distinction, but I think that we can alleviate some confusion in terms by understanding these things.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Quote:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Please read this excellent work of Monsg Fenton http://www.catholicculture.org/library/ ... ecnum=1357 . I believe is very usefull.


Dear Cristian,

I agree with all of your answers here, for what that is worth. :)

And of course, it is apparent that you are presenting the doctrine of Fenton and his terminology, which I also agree with.

The key to his terminology, as you seem to be aware, is that the concept "member" is a juridical/social one, which refers to the visible bonds uniting the members and parts of the Church visibly. The concept "member" as used by Fenton is not a reference to the invisible bonds which unite Christians. Fenton admirably protects the complementary truths that the Church is a visible unity outside of which no man is saved and that some men are saved even though not visibly joined to her.


Yes John, you are right.

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
KenGordon wrote:
One thing I think we should clarify here, and it is very important because of the misunderstanding of both the term and the fact: "Baptism" of Desire (and of Blood) are not, in fact, sacraments. The only Sacrament of Baptism is that of water, only.

The Church has traditionally called them "Baptism" of Desire or of Blood because they are sufficient for salvation, and are called "Baptism" because of their effect, similar to Baptism (the Sacrament), which is the gaining of Sanctifying Grace for the soul concerned.

I might also remind everyone that St. Alphonsus Liguori (among others) states that a belief in the existence of "Baptism" of Desire or of Blood are De Fide, or are required to be believed by anyone who calls himself Catholic.


I perfectly agree, Ken.

Quote:
Lastly, I must make clear that to me, the statement in the subject of these posts, i.e. "Non-members inside the Church", seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. To me, if they are inside the Church, they are members of Her, and, conversely, if they are members of Her, then they are inside Her.

They may not KNOW they are members, and it may even appear externally, to our eyes, that they are not members, but in fact, in God's Eyes, they are.

This is a subtle distinction, but I think that we can alleviate some confusion in terms by understanding these things.


I´ve to confess that when i first read Msgr. Fenton i thought the same, and that a first glance the sentence "non-members inside the Church" seems contradictory, but if we carefully follow his reasoning we`ll found it very clear and in agreement with the teachings of the Holy See.

Msgr. Fenton`s division is as follow:

"Inside the Church" = "members" and "those related to the Church by desire and longing"
"Outside the Church" = "Non-Members".

Insted, yours is:

"Inside the Church"= "actual members" and "members by desire"
"Outside the Church"= "non members"

This difference may seem unimportant or just a diferent terminology for saying the same, but it`s not.
If you say that "members by desire" are members or part of the Catholic Church, then it follows:

a) The Catholic Church would be made by Catholics and non-Catholics, that is the Non-Catholics would be not only inside of the Catholic Church but they rather would be part of Her. And so you may see that you are saying the same you are critizating.
You say: "To me, if they are inside the Church, they are members of Her, and, conversely, if they are members of Her, then they are inside Her."
But now you are saying: "Non Catholics (members by desire, for instance some jews in good faith) are inside the Catholic Church.

b) We would`ve an invisible Church, because it would be made of many invisible members.

c) One may be schismatic for two reasons either because one doesn`t want to submit to the Roman Pontiff or because one doesn`t want to communicate with the other members; now if you say that, let`s say a cathecumen, is a member of the Church you should communicate with him, and a priest shouldn`t deny the Holy Communion to him, and the ancient distinction between the "Cathecumen-Mass" and the "Faithfull-Mass" (is that written ok?) should be wrong.
Besides if someone is member, you are in communion with him, ergo it`s licit the communicatio in sacris with them, and we shouldn`t criticize JPII when he "concelebrates with anglicans, pagans, etc.

d) Major: Each member is subject of the Church (subject being the genus and member the species)
Minor: The cathecumen is memeber of the Church.
Ergo, the Cathecumen is subject of the church.
Major patet
Minor is a conclusion of what you say.
Conclusion follows.
But the conclusion is wrong as is obvious for Church history and common sentence of the theologians, Holy Fathers, etc.
Now let`s hear Msgr Fenton.
"Let us understand this well. When we speak of a member of the Church (or, for that matter, of any other social unit), we mean one of the persons who goes to make up this gathering or group. After all, the true Church of Jesus Christ is a group of people now existing in this world. The people who compose or constitute or go to make up this group are the members of the Church. The membrum ecclesiae is the pars ecclesiae." (Question about membership in the Church).
"The theologian who claims that every baptized person is in some way a member of the Church cannot be speaking seriously, if he has any understanding of the meaning of the term "member" as it is used with reference to the Catholic Church. He should realize that the Mystical Body of Christ in this world is not a social unit made up of Catholics and members of heretical and schismatic groups. (Otherwise we would come up with the super Church of the VII)
If people who are members of heretical or schismatic groups are in any way members of the true Church of Jesus Christ, then the true Church is definitely not the social unit that accepts the Bishop of Rome as its visible head."
"It is one of the most frequently and insistently taught dogmas of the Catholic faith that outside of the Catholic Church no one at all is saved, that outside of this society there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. According to the mechanics of the English language, one who is not "outside of" some physical or social entity must be said to be, in some way or other, "within" it. Hence it must be said that any non-member of the Catholic Church who has the remission of sins, which is to say the gift of sanctifying grace, or who dies in the state of grace so as to attain eternal salvation, must be or have died in some way "within" the Catholic Church in a status other than that of a member.
The Holy Office Letter Suprema haec sacra, summing up and stating in an authoritative manner what had always been the teaching of the sanior pars of the Church's scholastic theologians, asserted that the non-member of the Catholic Church who thus attained to eternal salvation "within" it was joined to the Church voto et desiderio. The entire sentence is so important that it should be repeated here. The Holy Office wrote: "Quandoquidem ut quis aeternam obtineat salutem, non semper exigitur ut reapse Ecclesiae tamquam membrum incorporetur, sed id saltem requiritur, ut eidem voto et desiderio adhaereat." (op cit)
The encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, with a less developed terminology, speaks of the possibility of non-members of the Church being ordered to the Church "inscio quodam desiderio ac voto." The Suprema haec sacra interprets this passage of the Mystici Corporis Christi as showing that people in this condition, that is, those who are ordered to the Church by an unconscious intention or desire, are not excluded from the possibility of attaining to eternal salvation.

The Suprema haec sacra makes it completely clear that those who are in a position to be saved only by reason of the fact that they have at least an implicit intention or desire to enter the Church and to remain within it are not reapse or in reality members of the true Church. In other words, the social unit which is the supernatural kingdom of God in this world is not composed of people who intend or desire to enter it. As a matter of fact, if we look at the terminology carefully, we can easily see that a statement to the contrary involves a self-contradiction. It is impossible to desire to enter a social unit of which one is already a member or a part (bold mine).
"Since the publication of the Suprema haec sacra it is clearly contrary to Catholic doctrine to hold or to teach that, in order to be "within" the Church in such a way as to be able to attain eternal salvation, a person must be some kind of a member of the Church. The very force of the terminology employed in the Holy Office letter runs counter to such a claim. The Suprema haec sacra teaches unequivocally that a man may be saved without ever really (reapse) becoming a member of the Church. It is definitely a disservice to the cause of Catholic theology to insinuate that, in order to be saved, a man has to be in some way a member of the Church. But, by the same token, it is imperative that the difference between being in the Church as a member, and being "within" it by reason of a desire, a prayer, or an intention to enter this society be very well understood.
It seems to me that this distinction can best be understood when the Church is considered for what it is, an actively working society. Perhaps the best statement of this aspect of teaching about the Church is brought out in the encyclical Humanum genus, issued by Pope Leo XIII April 20, 1884. Here is the key passage from the ecclesiological portion of this great encyclical.
The race of man, after its miserable fall from God . . . separated into two diverse parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other for those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, the true Church of Jesus Christ, and those who desire from their heart to be united with it so as to gain salvation must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God.
This twofold kingdom St. Augustine keenly discerned and described after the manner of two cities, contrary in their laws because striving for contrary objects; and with subtle brevity he expressed the efficient cause of each in these words: "Two loves formed two cities: the love of self, reaching even to contempt of God, an earthly city; and the love of God, reaching even to contempt of self, a heavenly one." At every period of time each has been in conflict with the other, with a variety and multiplicity of weapons and of warfare, although not always with equal ardor and assault.16
The first key explanation in this passage is to be found in the statement: "Alterum Dei est in terris regnum, vera scilicet Iesu Christi Ecclesia, cui qui volunt ex animo et convenienter ad salutem adhaerescere, necesse est Deo et Unigenito Filio eius tota mente ac summa voluntate servire."
It is quite obvious that, in the assertion. Pope Leo XIII was not speaking precisely about membership in the Church. He was describing the work necessary for any person who wished to "adhere" or to be joined to the Church in such a way as to obtain salvation "within" it. That work is the service of God, the work of religion, animated by charity, and obviously enlightened by true divine faith.
The Humanum genus describes the true Church of Jesus Christ as a social unit performing a definite work in this world, in the face of a perpetual opposition coming from the kingdom of Satan. The work of the kingdom of God is the work of the Church alone, because the Catholic Church alone is the true supernatural kingdom of God according to the dispensation of the New Testament. The one social unit performing that operation is the Church, but there are, in the mercies of God's grace, persons who are not members of the Church working with the Church for the attainment of those objectives for which the Church alone, among all the social units in this world, really works and fights to achieve. The man who has a sincere votum or desiderium, enlightened by faith and animated by charity, to enter the true Church of Jesus Christ is thus one who actually intends to work for the objective of the Church. And a man's intention to work for the glory of God through the salvation of souls in according to God the supernatural service of acknowledgement due to Him because of His supreme excellence and our complete dependence on Him is an intention of worshipping God. It is a religious intention which is manifested to God Himself in the act of prayer.
The prayer of the Catholic Church is expressed in the Pater noster, the formula of petition to God which was given to the disciples of Christ by Our Lord Himself. The great commentary on that prayer is the series of petitions which constitute the prayers of the Mass. The man who desires to be within the Church, and whose desire is such that it brings him "within" the true Church in such a way as to attain salvation "within" it, is one who intends and desires and prays for those objectives that are indicated in the text of the Pater noster and in the petitions of the Mass. And this remains true even though, through no fault of his own, the individual who is thus "within" the Church does not have a clear and explicit understanding of some of these individual objectives.
Prayer is the expression of an intention. And an intention is an effective act of the will. A man works in accordance and in line with his intention.
Thus it is apparent that the man who is not a member or a part of the Church, but who has a salvific intention or desire to enter it and to remain within it, is actually praying and working along with the Church for the objectives of Jesus Christ. In this way he is truly "within" the Church. And, since the work of the Church is accomplished in the face of serious and never-ending opposition, the non-member of the Church who has a salvific intention to join it is actually fighting for Our Lord "within" His company. He is actually serving God with his whole mind and his whole heart, and thus he is joined to the Church even in his status as a non-member of this society.
It is quite obvious that this condition can exist only as long as, for one reason or another, membership in the Church is impossible for this individual. When it becomes possible for a man to become a member of the Church, or when he becomes aware of the true status of the Catholic Church in the supernatural order, he can no longer work effectively for Our Lord except as a member of His Church.
Furthermore it must be remembered that it is possible for a member of the true and visible Church of Jesus Christ to be an unworthy member and to work against the objectives of the Church. "
"Now we come to another question frequently discussed in contemporary theological writing: the question as to whether or not there are degrees or kinds of membership within the true Church. There are some writers and teachers, especially in this country, who feel that people who are subjects of the Church by reason of their possession of the baptismal character and those who are "within" the Church by reason of a salutary votum or desiderium of entering it are to be designated as "incomplete" or as "virtual" or as "imperfect" members of the true Church. These individuals are under the impression that the statement in the Mystici Corporis Christi about those who alone are to be reckoned as members of the Church applies only to people whom they call "members in the strict sense." They imagine that there are other kinds of membership. And they definitely seem convinced that, if they can manage in some way to justify the practice of calling some groups of people who are obviously not Roman Catholics "members" of the true Church, they will have done a service to the cause of ecclesiastical unity.
In order to achieve their purpose, they depict the teaching of the Mystici Corporis Christi on membership in the Church as relating only to members in the strict sense, or in the strictest sense of the term. In so doing they misrepresent the doctrine of this great encyclical letter. The document says, of those who possess the four characteristics it mentions as necessary for membership: "In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt."17 Now "reapse" means "really" or "actually." It cannot be said to mean "in the strict sense of the term." According to the doctrine of the Mystici Corporis Christi there are none other than those who possess these four characteristics who can rightfully be counted or designated as members of the true Church of Jesus Christ. To say or to infer that there are others who can in any way be called real members of the Church, or that there are others to whom the term "member of the Church" can accurately be applied, is to contradict rather than to explain the clear teaching of the Mystici Corporis Christi.
Furthermore the practice of designating non-Catholics as "virtual" or as "incomplete" members of the Church involves a serious misuse of theological language. The importance of the thesis on membership in the Church rests on the fact that, according to the designs of God's providence, the true and only Church militant of the New Testament is an organized society, a group composed of people who are recognizable as parts of this group on account of their possession of certain recognizable characteristics. The central mystery of the economy of the New Testament is the fact that the one and only supernatural kingdom of God is the congregatio fidelium or the collectio catholicorum.18 It is the truth that the group or assembly that constitutes the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth is the society composed of the Catholics, the baptized people who profess the faith of the Roman Church, who are admitted to the sacramental life of the Church, and who live as subjects (in the religious order) to their proper ecclesiastical pastors, and ultimately to the Bishop of Rome. And, in the eyes of our own people and of non-Catholics, that mystery is beclouded by those who try to make men imagine that at least some non-Catholics are "incomplete" or "partial" or "virtual" members of the Church.
The member of the Church is the pars ecclesiae, one of those of whom the society which is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth is composed. It is not possible to be partially or incompletely or virtually a part of a society. One is either a part or not a part. a member or not a member. If he possesses some of the requisites for membership, but not all of them, then a man is not a member and should not be designated as such."
"There are those who imagine, in spite of the clear teaching of the Suprema haec sacra, that the dogma which teaches that no one at all can be saved outside of the Catholic Church means that a man has to be a member of the Church at the moment of his death in order to attain to the possession of the Beatific Vision. Because they realize that individuals who pass from this life without ever having become Catholics can attain to eternal salvation, they imagine themselves obliged to dream up some way in which some non-Catholics can be called members of the true Church. Thus they try to make themselves and others believe that a man can be a member of the Church considered as the redeemed human race, as redeemed human nature, or as some other types of spiritual reality, without enjoying membership in the juridical society known as the Catholic Church.
Ultimately the somewhat ingenious explanations of these men run afoul of the great truth which St. Robert alleged against the false theory that was being taught in his time. There is only one Church of Jesus Christ. The man who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. It is the great and paradoxical truth of God's dispensation with men in the economy of the New Testament that the Mystical Body of His Son is an organized society. It is composed of its members. And the men who constitute this society, the kingdom of God described in the parables of the Gospels, are the men who are bound to Our Lord and to one another by the outward bonds of ecclesiastical unity. This society lives by faith and hope and charity. But, in God's merciful design, it is a society made up of members who are members or parts of the Church by reason of the fact that they possess this outward bond of union. The true Church of Jesus Christ, according to the dispensation of the New Testament, is the visible Roman Catholic Church. And it is this one Church alone." (op cit)

I think this passage may help:

"In teaching that a votum or a desiderium of the Church can, under certain circumstances, suffice to bring a man to the attainment of the Beatific Vision, we must not forget that the Holy Office letter likewise uses a procedure which has been employed by the traditional Catholic theologians for many years. It classifies the Church itself, along with the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, among “those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution.” Conversely, of course, it thus implies the existence of other resources which are ordered to man’s ultimate goal by way of intrinsic necessity. Realties like the Church itself, and the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, may under certain circumstances achieve their effect when they are processed or used only in intention or desire. Helps of the other classification, like sanctifying grace, faith, and charity, must, on the other hand, be possessed or used in re if they are to achieve their purpose at all.
The letter applies this principle when it assures us that, in order for a man to 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.Such, of course, has been the explicit teaching of traditional Catholic theologians since the days of Thomas Stapleton and St. Robert Bellarmine.6 It is a commonplace of Catholic theology that a man could be saved if, finding it impossible to actually to join the Church as a member, he really sincerely intended or desired to live within this society." (Msgr Fenton, "The Holy Office letter on the necessity of the Catholic Church, p. 457, bold and italics mine)

Please Ken, see that what the Holy Office is telling us, is that it`s the Church itself (in the same way as the sacrament of Baptism and Penance) that should be used "voto vel desiderio" and not the membership itself.
There is no single document in history of the Catholic teaching issue by the Holy See in which we may read "member by desire".

In Christo et Maria Sanctissima

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Last edited by Cristian Jacobo on Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:24 am
Posts: 31
Location: Port Harcourt, Nigeria
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Inflamed with the little understanding of the subject I have just gained ... :D

I had trouble interpreting this line

Quote:
Quandoquidem ut quis aeternam obtineat salutem, non semper exigitur ut reapse Ecclesiae tamquam membrum incorporetur, sed id saltem requiritur, ut eidem voto et desiderio adhaereat.


So I got out my Latin translator software and did this. How well did I do?

Quote:
Seeing that, that anyone may obtain salvation, it is not always ***weighed***, as it were, that he really be incorporated as member of the Church, but at least, it is required that he adhere to the same [Church] ]by wish and desire.

_________________
Omnia ad Jesum per Mariam!


Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:00 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Quote:
Quandoquidem ut quis aeternam obtineat salutem, non semper exigitur ut reapse Ecclesiae tamquam membrum incorporetur, sed id saltem requiritur, ut eidem voto et desiderio adhaereat.


"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.”

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Short reply to Cristian
Cristian:

First of all, I must commend you on your command and understanding of the English language, which is, most obviously, not your native tongue. Well done.

Secondly, I would never question anything that Fr. Fenton wrote on any subject, except perhaps if he wrote something on electronics, radio hardware, or computers. :)

Thirdly, I have not yet had a chance to read your very long post, but will as soon as I can. I try to keep my own posts as short as possible (I don't believe in excessive verbiage), and I cannot afford much time to read others'.

I will answer you in more detail, if it is necessary, when I can.

God Bless.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Short reply to Cristian
Ken,

Quote:
First of all, I must commend you on your command and understanding of the English language, which is, most obviously, not your native tongue. Well done.

Thanks.


Quote:
Secondly, I would never question anything that Fr. Fenton wrote on any subject, except perhaps if he wrote something on electronics, radio hardware, or computers. :)

Well... I don`t even that, Ken!! :lol:
Quote:
I try to keep my own posts as short as possible (I don't believe in excessive verbiage), and I cannot afford much time to read others'.

I agree with you, and please forgive my long letters, the thing is that i take a lot of time to write in english and i just have time on weekends (if so (?)) and i wanted to write semel et pro semper (once for all (?) ) and being the most accurate i can.

God Bless you

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:37 pm
Posts: 25
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Cristian (and John),

Thanks for your helpful replies,

Here are some clarifications/fixes to what I wrote in my last post, in the light of your responses, and then some more thoughts about this issue.

1) By member by desire I always meant “member ‘in voto’” where the membership desired was the same as your idea of membership and John’s and Msgr. Fenton’s. (I wouldn’t have explained it as well, but my meaning was essentially the same). I didn't mean an invisible member, or a 2nd kind of member, or a 2nd way of being a member, but a non-member (seen only by God) who desires membership.

“Member by desire” was meant to be similar to the phrase “baptism of desire”, which means “the desire for actual baptism” where actual baptism is the visible Sacrament of Baptism. But of course “baptism of desire” is (despite possible ambiguity) a part of Catholic tradition. And “baptism” (with regard to what is needed for salvation) sometimes means “the Sacrament of Baptism, or the desire for it”. But “member by desire” isn’t a part of tradition, and “member” always means just actual membership.

So I’ll stop using “member by desire”, at least without explanation.

2) When I said “a member by desire is in some real sense a living member” I didn’t mean that it made you a real living member of the Visible Church. I meant that there was a tremendous spiritual correspondence between the two.

Those who only desire membership are not members of the Church, but grace comes to them from Christ, just as it does to His living members (even if not with equal abundance, ease, or security) . (I am talking about what is invisible here: not what makes you a member of the Church, but what gives life to your membership.). Perhaps St. Thomas, the Council of Trent, and Pope Pius XI (see my last post) spoke of all those (non-members) alive by Christ’s Sanctifying Grace as if they were “members of Christ” because of these invisible spiritual ties to Christ. I won’t speculate further.

When I said “members by desire” (those who only desire membership) were like hidden fragile twigs on Christ’s vine, I meant that without being Visible members of the Visible Church, spiritual life is likely to die, without access to the Visible helps and gifts of the Church.

Now I’ll use “member” only in the sense of a visible member of the Visible Church.

Especially considering the above problems, I think the title of my last post was misleading: “non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)”. I wasn’t asking for an explanation or saying Msgr. Fenton was wrong. I did and do understand his meaning and agree with it. But now I’m just thinking about that phrase “all by itself”, not as it would be used by Msgr. Fenton or by us, but by others, “out of context”.

.
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
=======
Quote:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, in his book “The Catholic Church and Salvation”, sometimes calls those who are not members of the Church simply “non-members”. “Outside the Church” everyone is a “non-member”. But “inside the Church” there are not only “members”, but also certain “non-members” (recognizable only to God).

Yes that is true.
In order to clear this question, one may say:
"Inside the Church" you found both "members" and those who are "related to the Church by a desire and longing" (Mystici Corporis).
"Outside the Church", Non-members.

Thanks. .

The problem with the phrase “non-member inside the Church” (the phrase used out of context!) is that it does not (by itself) say what “inside the Church” means. You (and Msgr. Fenton) explain it very well in a few lines. But it’s remotely possible that come careless person could walk away with the phrase (it’s so compact) leaving behind some of the explanation.…

Here are two ways the phrase could be read:
1) Msgr. Fenton’s meaning – a non-member who desires to be a member of the Church
2) Fuzzy meaning – a non-member who is in some fuzzy place or state called “inside the Church” where both members and some non-members can be saved… (remembering some or none of the part about “related to the Church by desire [ of membership ]”)

Suppose a protestant asks “what do you mean I can’t be saved?” and then hears he might be a “non-member inside the Church”. He might think “well, I’m a non-member already, and I was actually baptized, and I’ve been good – so I must already be inside the “Church”. Why should I become a member?”

Someone who says every good person is a “member of the Church”, might now say that “inside the Church” there are also those non-members who just “desire to be good”.

The person who’s desiring membership isn’t usually supposed to think about “being inside the Church”, or about his desiring itself, or about being a non-member. He’s supposed to think about being a member of the most desirable Church.

This was why I was originally motivated to try the phrase “member by desire” instead of “non-member inside the Church”. But I agree that in the context of Msgr. Fenton’s writings (where it belongs) the phrase “non-member inside the Church” is quite suitable. No one can be blamed if their clear and suitable words are taken out of context.

I think even the Church’s words have often been taken out of context…


Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:59 am
Profile
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Quote:
The Council of Trent [Denz. 796] says that justification (a translation to the state of grace) can be effected only through the Sacrament of Baptism or a desire for it .

The Council of Trent shortly after also says [Denz. 809]:

“…Christ Jesus Himself as the “head into the members” [Eph 4:15], and ‘as the vine into the branches’ [John 15:5] continually infuses His virtue into the said justified”…


The Dimond brothers interpret the "...or desire" [Denz. 796] by suggesting that "or" ('aut') can be translated "and" and is sometimes used that way even in Trent. They then analogize saying "I cannot take a shower unless I have a shower and the desire to take one".

In light of their objection, I believe the best way to determine the meaning of Trent here is via contextual hermeneutics, i.e., by asking how the saints and father alive at the time of the Council understood what was pronounced therein.


Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:33 am
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
paxus wrote:
In light of their objection, I believe the best way to determine the meaning of Trent here is via contextual hermeneutics, i.e., by asking how the saints and father alive at the time of the Council understood what was pronounced therein.


Or, you could ignore ignorant inventors of doctrine and look it up in a theology manual.

Otherwise you'd have to think that the theologians spent four hundred years not knowing what the Church's decrees meant.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Fr. Laisney replying to an inquiry on the "aut" used in Tren
Quote:
The Dimond brothers interpret the "...or desire" [Denz. 796] by suggesting that "or" ('aut') can be translated "and" and is sometimes used that way even in Trent. They then analogize saying "I cannot take a shower unless I have a shower and the desire to take one".


Fr. François Laisney, SSPX has addressed this issue by analyzing the Latin, and has debunked this argument. In the following exchange a writer put forth his argument to Fr. Laisney, and his responses follow:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feenyite Mr. xxxx :

No, the Latin is not poor and in fact, it remains the case that both baptism and the desire for it are necessary. If not, but only one or the other, then the conclusion contradicts canons 2, 5, and 8 at minimum. Therefore, Fr. Laisney has rendered a translation which is not consistent with the remaining canons of Trent. He also uses a Catholic Answers style approach to the question, using an invalid application of excess/defect to a matter of immutable principle throughout his book.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, and water is the necessary matter of the Sacrament of Baptism. That's the Catholic truth.

I will redouble my efforts against Fr. Laisney's mistake in the matter whenever the situation arises, and would invide him to enter the AQ forum in order to debate the matter.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. xxxx

Anybody who compares your message and mine can see that you do not answer argument for argument, but simply restate your erroneous understanding.

Your translation is faulty. The one I gave is not mine, but that of the Jesuits (they were great Latinists) and printed in "The Church Teaches". In my message, I invoque the authority of St. Alphonsus, who was certainly a good Latinist, much better than both you and me, and who bases himself on that very Latin passage to support his affirmation that it is "de fide" that some men are saved by Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis, which is now commonly called "Baptism of Desire"; what counts is the reality which is the same). Nowhere you dare refute the authority of St. Alphonsus, who is backed up by the authority of the Pope who declared him Doctor of the Church: he would never have been declared Doctor of the Church if he had taught something contrary to Church teaching as being de fide, AFTER it had been declared so. Therefore his interpretation of the Council of Trent is the right one. By the way, it is also the interpretation of the WHOLE Church except a few Feeyites, who condemned themselves by the very fact that they depart from the unanimous sense of the Church from her very beginning (the doctrine on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of desire belong to the deposit of Faith, it is transmitted to us by Tradition, and found in so many Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Saints that one is not allowed to depart from that unanimous sense of the Church: this is not the "holier than the Pope" argument, but it is the very basic argument of Tradition: "If any one comes and teaches you something DIFFERENT from what had been taught before, let him be anathema"; Father Feeney denied Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire which had always been taught before; he did so explicitly thinking to "improve on the Fathers and Doctors" according to the testimony of Brother Michael; this is his own condemnation).

You try to argue from Canons 2, 5, and 8. But here again, you do not understand them properly. The proper conclusion from these Canons can clearly be read in the 1917 Canon Law: you find all that in my book "Is Feeneyism Catholic?"

I do not "use an invalid application of excess/defect to a matter of immutable principle." (It is not sufficient to asset such accusion for it to be true: in no way do you prove it!) On the contrary, I apply the immutable principle of "nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est"; Father Feeney's denial of Baptism of Desire was an innnovation in doctrine, which was in direct contradition with what had been positively taught by the Church, not only by her Doctors and Saints, but also sanctioned by the Holy Council of Trent, the 1917 Canon Law and the Popes (Pius IX, St. Pius X catechism,...) It is out of fidelity to the Church immutable doctrine that one MUST reject the error of Fr. Feeney, nay his heresy (at least material).

We must keep the Faith, not change it.

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

Father François Laisney

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

First rebtuall of Father François Laisney his direct reply to the Latin translations position of recent feeneyism.


The easiest way to see how false it is is simply to give the texts:
Latin: iustificatio... est "translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Savatorem nostrum, quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum SINE LAVACRO REGENERATIONIS AUT EIUS VOTO FIERI NON POTEST..." (Trent, sess. 6, cap 4, Denz 796)
Translation (from The Church Teaches, n° 560): "Justification is a passing from the state in which a man is born a son of the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption as the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Saviour. After the promulgation of the Gospel this passing CANNOT take place WITHOUT the water of regeneration or the desire for it."

Everybody can see that the double negation (NON potest SINE lavacro) is found both in Latin AND in English (cannot ... without...), and yet that does not make that BOTH the washing (better "washing" than "water" to translate "lavacro") and the desire for it are necessary. In order to make BOTH necessary, it should have said: "this passing cannot take place without the washing of regeneration NOR WITHOUT the desire for it" (in Latin: "NEQUE SINE eius voto"), which is not the same thing. In good logic, in order to make the necessity fall individually on EACH of "washing" and "desire", there would be need to repeat the "neither... neither." As it stands, the necessity (non potest sine... cannot without...) falls GLOBALLY on the set "the washing of regeneration or the desire for it." There is no other proper grammatical interpretation. The translators have well translated. And everybody reading either the Latin or the translation has understood it according to the Traditional way, which made that St. Alphonsus, BASING HIMSELF PRECISELY ON THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, say that "it is de fide that there are men saved by Baptism of Desire."

Here is the text of St. Alphonsus (in my edition of 1767, i.e. St. Alphonsus was still alive!) "De fide autem est per Baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari, ex. c. Apostolicam. De Presb. non bapt. [he refers here to the letter of Innocent II given in Denz. 388] et Trid. Sess. 6, c. 4 ubi dicitur neminem salvari posse sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto."

Note that St. Alphonsus quotes the passage of the Council of Trent misunderstood by Paul XXXX with the double negative (neminem... sine) and concludes that it is de fide that some men are saved by Baptism of Desire! He spoke Latin and wrote Latin fluently: he would not draw such strong conclusion if it was not the actual meaning of the Council of Trent! Note also that his claim that is it "de fide" relies not so much on the letter of Innocent II (which is certainly of lower authority than the Council of Trent), but rather on the Council of Trent itself. He does not say that it is "de fide definita" since it is not in a Canon, but he says nonetheless that it is "de fide": and it is certainly sinful to deny a teaching which is taught "de fide" by a dogmatic Council such as the Council of Trent.

I hope that this will help some souls of good will.

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

Father François Laisney

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:48 pm
Profile
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Quote:
Or, you could ignore ignorant inventors of doctrine and look it up in a theology manual.
Otherwise you'd have to think that the theologians spent four hundred years not knowing what the Church's decrees meant.


John, I have come to respect you too much to always agree with you. St. Thomas showed that when the ignorant inventors of doctrine come, and if they will not heed the theological manuals, then it is a salutary thing to approach the matter from the standpoint of reason and other arguments / approaches for their spiritual growth and salvation. It's never wrong or defective to hail down on them sundry maps to truth when these all lead to the way Home.

As you said in another post somewhere, we must still hold out hope for the Dimond brothers. They have about half or more of many things right, despite the foam of spit gathered round their lips.


Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:32 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
paxus wrote:
John, I have come to respect you too much to always agree with you. St. Thomas showed that when the ignorant inventors of doctrine come, and if they will not heed the theological manuals, then it is a salutary thing to approach the matter from the standpoint of reason and other arguments / approaches for their spiritual growth and salvation. It's never wrong or defective to hail down on them sundry maps to truth when these all lead to the way Home.


Yes, of course.

I have two objects in view. The first is of vastly greater value as it addresses many souls, and the second is usually hopeless.

1. To discredit the Feeneyites.
2. To convince the Feeneyites.

Now, in both cases the key is to emphasise the role and intention of authority in the matter. That is, in theology the data are whatever the Church teaches, and reason works upon those as its premisses. Therefore the strongest argument is the argument from authority; further, this argument anybody can understand, no matter how simple. The Feeneyite errors on Baptism and how its graces may be had are the fruit of failing to understand or accept how the Church teaches us. Because of this failure, there is an inevitable divergence from what she actually teaches.


paxus wrote:
As you said in another post somewhere, we must still hold out hope for the Dimond brothers.

And the way to bring them to the truth is to insist on discussing the manner in which the Church teaches us; that is, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. Feeneyites will never agree to this discussion, in my experience, precisely because their entire argument rests upon the (disordered) liberty to read and interpret ecclesiastical sources for themselves, even contrary to the universal understanding of all the trained experts in theology for hundreds of years!

Which brings us back to our two objects, and the means to achieve them - by emphasising this point we discredit the Dimonds and other Feeneyites and we also highlight the real problem with Feeneyite doctrine, which is more fundamental than one or two errors about Baptism.

Let me put this in a nutshell for you. You'll never win an argument with somebody regarding the meaning of a piece of Latin if they don't know Latin and yet insist on their position. There's obviously something more fundamental wrong there.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:38 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Non-members inside the Church? (Msgr. Fenton)
Hmmm...Well said. Your two points are certainly true to my experience, and your analysis makes complete sense. Sadly, I'm afraid it's true. Maybe on occasion I try---without prejudice to the truth of what you say--- because people like Matatics backed off on this, if I am not mistaken. A rare thing indeed if true.


Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:42 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.