Post by EricH on Aug 19, 2016 16:01:16 GMT -5
I think James Larrabee's remarks on the doctrine of exclusive salvation and the case of Fr. Feeney are quite good, especially his treatment of the 1949 Holy Office letter. (link) Brief excerpt:
It is simply not the case that the Holy Office letter has any binding force on anybody. Neither (even) do papal encyclicals, in and of themselves. If they contain a formal definition (cf. Quanta Cura), that is another matter. In the law of the Church, in matters legitimately disputed among theologians, a legal charge of heresy cannot be sustained until the matter has been solemnly defined. By "legitimately disputed" I mean matters where the truth is not evident from Scripture and/or Tradition, whether or not some person, even a theologian, even a Doctor of the Church giving his own opinion thinks that it is. It is also the case that theologians (or anyone else) are forbidden to teach publicly any doctrine which has been condemned by the Holy See (though not necessarily as heretical). In the latter case, a charge of heresy would not lie. Privately, anyone could hold such an opinion, speak about it among friends, etc. without being liable, I believe, to any canonical charge.
Now, the letter mentioned does not constitute a condemnation even under the law forbidding condemned doctrines to be taught publicly (much less is it a definition, I hope that is obvious). For that, a decree must be issued, listing the condemned opinion or opinions. This is a highly formal legal proceeding. The result will say "Decree" at the top, or at any rate will be put in a fixed legal form. It should be remembered that the Holy Office, like all the Vatican dicasteries, is a tribunal, a court of law. It renders decisions and only they are legally binding. Letters or instructions or the like are advisory, not binding. And that letter does not even clearly state exactly what errors it is deprecating.
Alternatively, it is true that any opinion disputed among theologians can be presumed to be legitimately disputed prior to any formal action by the Holy See (a solemn definition, or a decree of the Holy Office) among theologians, and the longer this situation lasts, the stronger will be the presumption. The Gallicans denied the infallibility of the Pope for centuries, right up to 1870. But they were never molested by the Holy See on this account. Of course, other theologians could and did characterize their position as heretical.
The Code of Canon Law (canon 1323) is pretty clear on this, so far as what is to be considered defined.
For clarity, I should mention that by "legitimately" I do not mean to imply morally good or theologically correct or even probable (in the common sense of the term), but merely tolerated by the Holy See and not contrary to the public law of the Church.
Mike, we would all be overjoyed if we could help heal the errors of our neighbor, and the Heavenly Court would rejoice even more. But the first requirement of charity, as I said in another message, is truth. I am not accusing anyone in this discussion of lying. I think you have been misled by sources you trusted, like the "feeneyites".
With many regards,
James Larrabee
If you need any proof that the Feeneyites have been led astray, contact any of them that you know and ask them if they humbly submit in entirety to the 1949 letter of the Holy Office which clearly summarizes Catholic teaching on "extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus."
Now, the letter mentioned does not constitute a condemnation even under the law forbidding condemned doctrines to be taught publicly (much less is it a definition, I hope that is obvious). For that, a decree must be issued, listing the condemned opinion or opinions. This is a highly formal legal proceeding. The result will say "Decree" at the top, or at any rate will be put in a fixed legal form. It should be remembered that the Holy Office, like all the Vatican dicasteries, is a tribunal, a court of law. It renders decisions and only they are legally binding. Letters or instructions or the like are advisory, not binding. And that letter does not even clearly state exactly what errors it is deprecating.
Alternatively, it is true that any opinion disputed among theologians can be presumed to be legitimately disputed prior to any formal action by the Holy See (a solemn definition, or a decree of the Holy Office) among theologians, and the longer this situation lasts, the stronger will be the presumption. The Gallicans denied the infallibility of the Pope for centuries, right up to 1870. But they were never molested by the Holy See on this account. Of course, other theologians could and did characterize their position as heretical.
The Code of Canon Law (canon 1323) is pretty clear on this, so far as what is to be considered defined.
For clarity, I should mention that by "legitimately" I do not mean to imply morally good or theologically correct or even probable (in the common sense of the term), but merely tolerated by the Holy See and not contrary to the public law of the Church.
Mike, we would all be overjoyed if we could help heal the errors of our neighbor, and the Heavenly Court would rejoice even more. But the first requirement of charity, as I said in another message, is truth. I am not accusing anyone in this discussion of lying. I think you have been misled by sources you trusted, like the "feeneyites".
With many regards,
James Larrabee