Question: What do you say about the Feeneyite crowd that says there is no salvation outside of formal membership in the the Roman Catholic Church? There's this one particular traditionalist I've been dealing with who insists on it.
Answer:
First of all, no private person is qualified to make a judgement on what is or isn't heretical and that includes lay people, priests, and theologians. That is a matter of jurisdiction reserved only to the Ordinary in each diocese and ultimately to the Holy See. If your friend wishes to support a particular opinion in this matter because he thinks that it is correct and other alternatives are wrong, that is one thing. He has NO right to call any position heretical that has not been condemned by Church authorities and he cannot denounce anyone as a heretic who has not been so labeled by such authorities. He should be told this point blank. If he wants to use the "H" words, then he needs to submit to Church discipline and only use them when they have been duly authorized. Otherwise the strongest thing he can say is, "I disagree because . . ."
The Catechism is a document of the Ordinary Magisterium duly promulgated by the Holy See with the Pope's supervision and blessing. If you read the Encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII of happy memory and chapter 25 of Lumen Gentium (ie the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from VCII) you will see that such a document promulgated in this way is indeed infallible. To quote Humani Generis:
"20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
This same reasoning must be applied to VCII. The old "pastoral council" schtick just doesn't cut it. This was a solemn assembly convoked by Pope John XXIII as an Ecumenical Council whose documents were promulgated by Pope Paul VI as authoritative. The Popes have subsequently quoted extensively from VCII in their encyclicals as did the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. There is no ignoring or contradicting the teachings of this Council. Besides, VCII did define certain dogmas infallibly. For example:
1) The sub-diaconate is not a sacrament, but only a sacramental. 2) Consecration to the episcopate is not a new sacrament but rather the fullness of the sacrament of orders. 3) The Council of Trent did not declare that Scripture and Tradition were 2 separate sources but two parts of the same source -- Divine Revelation. 4) The details of religious liberty in relation to the state were defined solemnly and definitively.5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church and is properly understood as a member of the Church. (ie, Mariology is most properly subsumed under ecclesiology rather than Christology.) 6) Lumen Gentium Chapter 25 provides the watershed understanding of the doctrine of infallibility and completes the work that VCI was not able to deal with in 1870 and which Pius XII dealt with partially in Humani Generis. There is no more comprehensive explication and defense of the Magisterium in any other Magisterial document. There are other important issues but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.
By voicing such an opinion, these men have opposed themselves to the highest teaching authority in the Church and can no longer be considered "Catholic" in any meaningful sense of the word. Aside form the authority issues, JPII has 2 doctorates: one in theology and one in philosophy. He is a recognized expert on St John of the Cross and a mystic in his own right. XXXX can't even hold down a job and has no degree. He should be a little more humble and obedient both to the Holy Father and to his local ordinary. If I had a choice between the opinions of XXXX & the Feeneyite crowd versus that of Dr. Karol Wojtyla (leaving aside his prerogatives as bishop and Pope), which do you think I would pick? When you add the promise of Christ given to St Peter in Matthew 16:16-20, there is no contest.
In principle, the Feeneyite crowd is right. It is a solemn dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. The strongest statement of this is found in the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctam" penned by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. It goes like this:
"UNAM SANCTUM Promulgated November 18, 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog. 'He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep', meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard'. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter_by_ the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God', but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other. For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man'. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself,' Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth.Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (End of Unam Sanctam)
To paraphrase St Augustine, "Roma locuta est, cause finita est" (ie, Rome has spoken, the matter is closed). Essentially, anyone who through his own fault is outside of the Roman Catholic Church is committing a mortal sin and will be damned for it. With this point, I have no argument. In fact I will agree that we Catholics have become too sentimental to the point that we act as if it doesn't matter what Christian Church (or any other type of religion) you profess as long as you are a "good practicing" member of it. I submit that many "good" religious people are being damned because they want to "find Jesus on their own" and refuse to submit to those parts of the full revelation of God in Christ that they don't care for, such as the ban on divorce and contraception. People who jump ship to find an easier life have seriously endangered their souls. I think many Protestant "scholars" are also in grave danger because with their knowledge of Church History, they should know better.. (I always have worried about C. S. Lewis in this regard. I pray that there was a good reason why he did not convert.)
But the Feeneyites go even further. They say that anyone who has reached the age of reason who is outside of the RCC is in mortal sin. Why? Because they allege such people have no valid excuse for not becoming Catholics. They will say something like "Their guardian angels, the saints, the BVM, the Holy Spirit, and Christ himself are constantly whispering in their ears and enticing them to join the Church. Therefore no one can be considered invincibly ignorant of their obligation to join the one true Church of Jesus Christ."
It is at this point that the Feeneyites depart from solemn Catholic teaching. You see, they are claiming that ALL people remaining outside of the Church are committing mortal sin by doing so. Now to commit a mortal sin you must meet 3 basic criteria:
1) The moral action must involve an objectively serious matter
2) The agent must know that it is an objectively serious matter.
3) The agent must fully consent to it with his will.
In classical Catholic thinking, to commit a mortal sin it is not enough to do something that is seriously wrong in the objective order. You must know what you are doing and fully will to do the evil act. In other words, culpability can be attenuated by either ignorance or ambivalence.
This is what the Feeneyites deny. If we take their thesis to its logical conclusion, then all objectively serious moral acts are automatically mortally sinful. This not only puts them at odds with St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Liguori (2 great doctors of the Church who dealt with the definition of mortal sin). It also puts them in opposition to solemn Magisterial teaching (See "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" 17§12 -Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of His Holiness Pope John Paul II issued on 2 Dec 84).
In essence, their aberration is not merely about the "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" question. They are excessively rigourous in their definition of mortal sin and their opinions border on Calvinism and Jansenism.
The Holy Office sent a letter to the Bishop of Boston in 1949 (with Pope Pius XII's concurrence) to criticize the Feeneyite position. It is in the Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum and its various translations (including Neuner & Depuis and Deferrari). It clearly states that invincible ignorance is possible and that it is not necessary for salvation to have an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church (as among catechumens). A merely implicit desire may also suffice.
I hope this helps. I will pray that things go well. I would advise you to be very careful in dealing with these people. If they are not amenable to criticism even by the Popes, then they will not be impressed with you or me.
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate