Invincible Ignorance and Salvation

Columba wrote:

Before proper Catechetics can be fruitful, proper theology (or even logic) must be brought to bear on the theory of "Invincible Ignorance."

If God is God and Christ the Son of God founded a Church and gave that Church the command, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations," and God does not command the impossible, then there can be no such thing as invincible ignorance.

There can only be a lack of response to the command with the resulting loss of souls who remain ignorant because of the neglect of believers. I haven't time right now to develope this but no doubt you can see where I'm going.

I think so, so let’s bring Church teaching and proper theology to bear on the so called “theory of Invincible Ignorance”.

Your own private theory postulates that if any soul is lost in ignorance, it is because he remains ignorant out of negligence. That of course has a ring of truth to it, but that is not the whole or even the relevant part of the “theory of Invincible Ignorance” that we are concerned with.

Since we cannot discuss invincible ignorance without having recourse to the teachings of Pope Pius IX, let’s cut straight to the chase:

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1856, #7:

The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control…

Why does Pope Pius IX appear to be making a distinction (concerning the “hope” of salvation) between those who know that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (and refuse to return, or refuse to enter) and those who are excused through invincible ignorance? Because in the case of the former “those men cannot be saved [they cannot have the hope of salvation], who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." (VCII, Ad Gentes)

However, did Pope Pius IX or VCII mean by this that those who are excused through invincible ignorance have the hope of salvation, even if they remain in their state of ignorance? They did not. If no one can be saved without that faith which alone is pleasing to God, and if the hope of salvation is placed only in the Catholic Church and only through the Faith of the Church, which … scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, then the darkness of ignorance must be scattered by the splendor of the divine light of truth (and grace) if there is to be the hope of salvation and unity with the Church. In other words, it is only by the divine light of grace that one may possess that Faith which is pleasing to God and one may finally be joined to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity, if not also in the material and visible bonds of formal Church membership.

Some may see a contradiction, or at least an inconsistency, in the Syllabus of errors (1864) of Pope Pius IX when he condemned the following proposition:

Condemned Proposition #17: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical ‘Quanto Conficiamur,’ Aug. 10, 1863, etc.”

The condemned proposition falls under the heading "Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism", with Pope Pius IX referencing his own Encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur, which says the following:

Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863, #7: "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."

In his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, Pope Pius IX condemns the same perverse opinions:

In our times, many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."

It should be obvious, given the context, that Pope Pius IX is condemning the errors of indifferentism and latitudinarianism which have not a few Catholics believing that there is salvation outside the Church for those who remain “living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity”. By reading it in context we can see Pope Pius IX is not in contradiction with his previous declaration where he said “nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control”; thereby suggesting once again that only those who are properly disposed (those who are not willfully alienated from the Church and are “excused through ignorance beyond his control”) and are open to the divine light of grace, and IF they respond to that same light of grace, may finally be joined to the Church if they are to have the hope of salvation.

But so long as they remain visibly separated from the Church, they cannot be sure of their salvation and they cannot have the hope of salvation if they remain alienated from the Church of Christ.

This also ties into Mystic Corporis Christi, where Pope Pius XII taught:

We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us … We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly … and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. [196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with [or are ordained towards] the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.

Footnote 196 references IAM VOS OMNES, Apostolic Letter of His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, that they might return to the Catholic Church, which says in part:

.. in none of these societies, and not even in all of them taken together, can in some way be seen the one and Catholic Church which Christ the Lord built, constituted, and willed to exist. Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity. […] It is for this reason that so many who do not share “the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church” must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace. (http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2008/06/bl-pius-ix-iam-vos-omnes-ecumenism.html)

In Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pope Pius IX goes on to teach:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Unfortunately, most Feeneyites completely ignore the clear words which say "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace", and "interpret" the entire passage to mean that the invincibly ignorant are damned, but will not suffer the eternal torments for the inculpable sin of ignorance.

In The Sincere Christian by Bishop George Hay, he writes:

Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," [John 3: 5] which establishes the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces with all his heart the light of True Faith, which God gives him in his last moments-----as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state "to join the external Communion of the Church in the eyes of men, "yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the True Faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.

And of course, Fr. Michael Mueller and Orestes Brownson teach the same “interpretation” of the same doctrine.

I rest my case.

This prayer by Pope Pius XI is still relevant as ever:

O Mary, merciful Refuge of Sinners! Behold how many souls are lost every hour! Behold the countless millions of those who live in barbarous regions, and do not know Jesus Christ. See, too, how many others are far from the bosom of Mother Church: Catholic, Apostolic, Roman! O Mary, let not the Precious Blood and fruits of Redemption be lost for so many souls. Grant that heavenly light may enlighten and enkindle so many cold hearts. Obtain the grace for all pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics to receive supernatural light and enter into the bosom of the true Church. Hear the prayer of the Supreme Pontiff that all nations may be united in the one faith, that they may know and love Jesus Christ the blessed fruit of thy womb. Then all men shall love thee also, who art the salvation of the world, dispenser of the treasures of God. And, glorifying thee who, by means of thy Rosary, dost trample upon all heresies, they shall acknowledge that it is thou who givest life to all nations: a fulfillment of the prophecy: "All generations shall call me blessed." Amen. (Prayer to Our Queen of Victories)

Nowhere in any of those passages is Pope Pius IX or XII ever claiming that those who die without sacramental Baptism can attain the Beatific Vision. The Baltimore Catechism, which was written long after Pius IX's statements said this:

Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:

Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

All "Feeneyites" would agree with the above:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-145.html

Baltimore Catechism -- Question 653.:

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Yes, we "Feeneyites" agree, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. We do not think that such happens, ever. As Brother Andre Marie said in his article (see the footnote), "And who would have the temerity to suggest that God cannot or will not provide sacramental baptism for him, even miraculously?" Again, even if Baptism of Desire exists without sacramental Baptism in Water (Baptism of Blood, we all agree, is very rare), it would only help those who are capable of desiring it. It would not help infants and young children, the majority of whom throughout history died before reaching the Age of Reason. The view of Father Feeney puts more people in Heaven, not fewer, for "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, so we can certainly have at least some hope for virtually all human beings who are born into this world.

Well, Jehanne, we can always count on you to hijack a thread so you can give us your “opinion” on what “we Feeneyites” believe. Feeneyites, we are to understand, are supposed to be in agreement with you when you say baptism of desire is true, and even possible; but rare (as a “null set”, it never happens). Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Br. Andre Marie rejects your “we Feeneyites believe” spin that baptism of desire is true, but rare; for he is on record as saying that baptism of desire is false – that a state of justification “by the desire thereof” is NOT salvific for those who die without the sacrament. So I would suggest that you stop pretending to speak for Feeneyites, when you speak only for yourself.

In an earlier thread, you said that the Holy Office Letter of 1949 is “formally heretical”. I’m still waiting for proof, and a retraction, just as you finally retracted your false accusation (and nonsense) that “the “implicit desire” for Baptism is formally heretical unless the desire becomes explicit.

And as far as Br. Andre saying "And who would have the temerity to suggest that God cannot or will not provide sacramental baptism for him, even miraculously?", it is not a question of “cannot” or “will not”; it is a question of whether, in His freedom and complete sovereignty over His own sacraments, He is bound to do so.

Anyone who has the temerity to say that God “will not” provide the salvific grace of the sacrament to those who are prevented by some necessity from receiving it - because God has predestined each and every soul to the sacrament of baptism, or because God has ordained that Baptism is the only instrumental means by which the translation to justice (and salvation) can be effected, are simply imposing their own private opinions over the clear traditions and teachings of the Church.

Now, where were we; oh yeah, "invincible ignorance".

MRyan wrote:Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Br. Andre Marie rejects your “we Feeneyites believe” spin that baptism of desire is true, but rare; for he is on record as saying that baptism of desire is false – that a state of justification “by the desire thereof” is NOT salvific for those who die without the sacrament. So I would suggest that you stop pretending to speak for Feeneyites, when you speak only for yourself.

Citation, please? I am, by the way, seeking to become a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, so I am in periodic contact with Brother Andre Marie.

MRyan wrote:In an earlier thread, you said that the Holy Office Letter of 1949 is “formally heretical”. I’m still waiting for proof, and a retraction, just as you finally retracted your false accusation (and nonsense) that “the “implicit desire” for Baptism is formally heretical unless the desire becomes explicit.

Here you go:

"However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

This is absolutely false and was changed at the Second Vatican Council. It should have read, "when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God may accept an implicit desire."

How does Archbishop Richard J. Cushing know what the One and Triune God will or will not accept? And, once again, is the Archbishop claiming that individuals who die without Baptism are part of this "invincibly ignorant" group? If so, he doesn't say that, at least not "explicitly." Is he claiming that one need not follow the natural law (abortion, artificial contraception, etc.), which, by the way, most religions outside of Catholicism at least tolerate if not condone? And, answer this for me,

Why was the text of the Holy Office letter changed at the Second Vatican Council? Why was the phrase "votum implicitum" dropped at Vatican II??

As for "implicit desire" for Baptism, the Roman Catechism is of higher authority than Saint Thomas:

Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any UNFORESEEN accident make it IMPOSSIBLE for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

Noting too "implicit" about that! So, consider Saint Thomas corrected on this one.

MRyan wrote:And as far as Br. Andre saying "And who would have the temerity to suggest that God cannot or will not provide sacramental baptism for him, even miraculously?", it is not a question of “cannot” or “will not”; it is a question of whether, in His freedom and complete sovereignty over His own sacraments, He is bound to do so.

Well, then you don't know, do you?

MRyan wrote:Anyone who has the temerity to say that God “will not” provide the salvific grace of the sacrament to those who are prevented by some necessity from receiving it - because God has predestined each and every soul to the sacrament of baptism, or because God has ordained that Baptism is the only instrumental means by which the translation to justice (and salvation) can be effected, are simply imposing their own private opinions over the clear traditions and teachings of the Church.

I do not think that "Feeneyites" have claimed any more than a "private opinion" on this question. Saying that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood can happen is completely different than saying that it is does happen. And since it applies (in the case of Baptism of Desire at least, Baptism of Blood being very rare) only to those persons seven years or older, it would be tantamount to "proving a negative" to say that it did not happen, wouldn't it?

MRyan wrote:Now, where were we; oh yeah, "invincible ignorance".

It's a non-issue.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Br. Andre Marie rejects your “we Feeneyites believe” spin that baptism of desire is true, but rare; for he is on record as saying that baptism of desire is false – that a state of justification “by the desire thereof” is NOT salvific for those who die without the sacrament. So I would suggest that you stop pretending to speak for Feeneyites, when you speak only for yourself.

Citation, please? I am, by the way, seeking to become a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, so I am in periodic contact with Brother Andre Marie.

Br. Andre Marie wrote: “I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are.” (see "Comments" section within http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/)

So when you said that “Yes, we ‘Feeneyites" agree, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.” … “Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the [salvific] effects of the Baptism of water” [Baltimore Catechism, Q. 653], the leadership of the St. Benedict Center does not agree with you. If it is held that a state of justification by means of baptism of desire or baptism of blood cannot save without the sacrament, debating whether it is “impossible” for the catechumen to receive it or not is irrelevant.

“Private opinion” or not, that is their position. So stop pretending to speak for “Feeneyites” when you disagree with them on such a fundamental matter of salvation.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:In an earlier thread, you said that the Holy Office Letter of 1949 is “formally heretical”. I’m still waiting for proof, and a retraction, just as you finally retracted your false accusation (and nonsense) that “the “implicit desire” for Baptism is formally heretical unless the desire becomes explicit.

Here you go:

"However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

This is absolutely false and was changed at the Second Vatican Council. It should have read, "when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God may accept an implicit desire."

Why was the text of the Holy Office letter changed at the Second Vatican Council? Why was the phrase "votum implicitum" dropped at Vatican II??

No, it not false and VCII changed nothing of the Church’s understanding as it is reflected in the Holy Office Letter to Ab Cushing. The Letter confirms that for the Catechumen, who obviously is NOT ignorant of the Catholic Church, his desire to enter the Church must be explicit; however, for those involved in invincible ignorance of the true Church, under the right conditions, “God accepts also an implicit desire [to enter the Church]”. The Letter also teaches:

"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith...." (Protocol Letter Suprema Haec Sacra {122/49} from the Holy Office, 1949).

Your telling us that the Letter “should have read, ‘when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God may accept an implicit desire'" is like saying that the Church erred in Lumen Gentium 14 when it declared:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

Does that mean that they are “members”? It does not; neither does it suggest that the obligation to be Baptized is in any way diminished. But, should those who manifest the requisite desire (and intentions) die without benefit of the Sacrament through no fault of their own, the Church “reckons” them as already baptized and “embraces them as her own”, without giving the "assurance" of salvation.

The Church and the Holy Office Letter teach that God will accept an implicit desire to enter the Church when that intention is grounded in the right dispositions, and that this implicit desire is salvific when it is animated by a perfect Charity; a Charity which also animates one’s Faith (resulting in supernatural Faith).

Get it?

And that is precisely the reason why the 1997 changes to the English Edition of the CCC included a correction to its misleading presentation of the doctrine (CCC 1281), which originally said this:

“… all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).”

Under the 1997 instruction and correction, the phrase now reads:

“… all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).”

The correction suggests that other conditions must be fulfilled if those who are ignorant of the Church, but are acting under the inspiration of grace, are finally to be saved. This passage references LG 16 which calls this inspiration and good will ... “a preparation for the Gospel", while Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore also taught that such souls who are “ready to obey God,” “[if] they live honest lives … are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace”. And, once again, what is the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace if not the divine light of faith and sanctifying grace? Pope Pius IX also taught that “the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love.” (Singulari Quidem)

The FACT is, the text of the Holy Office Letter was NOT changed at VCII, but its content was confirmed by Lumen Gentium 16 where it specifically references the Letter:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.)

It was not that “implicit desire” was “dropped”, it is more accurate to say that the “desire” to enter the Church is not even mentioned because the meaning of “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church” is understood in the context of the referenced Holy Office Letter, which makes it clear that an implicit desire to enter the Church is accepted by God, but that this desire must be animated by perfect Charity and supernatural Faith.

Again, faithfully echoing Pope Pius IX, LG 16 goes on to teach “Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

So I would suggest that you stop parroting or rephrasing what the St. Benedict Center says on any given topic and start thinking for yourself (and with the Church), and do your own research, as you did with baptism of desire when you realized that the Church does indeed teach, and that this doctrine is true, that one may be saved by baptism of desire and baptism of blood when the sacrament is “impossible” to receive. Whether you think it ever happens or not is irrelevant to the truth of the teaching itself. So stop twisting this as if your opinion on whether it happens or not matters.

This “blind obedience” to certain “opinions” of the St. Benedict Center can be quite annoying, and is discredited when confronted with the truth. This is no different than your blind obedience to the opinion of some St. Benedict Center member who says that the Church’s teaching on Limbo can mean the opposite of what it says because Limbo is not opposed to the justice of God, as if the Church suggested that it was by allowing for the “hope” of salvation.

Jehanne wrote:As for "implicit desire" for Baptism, the Roman Catechism is of higher authority than Saint Thomas:

You mean the same Roman Catechism that teaches Baptism of Desire? This particular passage from the Roman Catechism is referring only to those adults (Catechumens) preparing for Baptism, and St. Thomas agrees that the desire to enter the Church must be explicit in this case; but St. Thomas, and the Holy Office Letter, when teaching "implicit desire", is referring to the invincibly ignorant; a subject that is not addressed by the Catechism of Trent, but is addressed by St. Thomas, Pope Pius IX, the H.O. Letter, VCII and the CCC.

Get with the program.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And as far as Br. Andre saying "And who would have the temerity to suggest that God cannot or will not provide sacramental baptism for him, even miraculously?", it is not a question of “cannot” or “will not”; it is a question of whether, in His freedom and complete sovereignty over His own sacraments, He is bound to do so.

Well, then you don't know, do you?

Yes, I do know, because THAT is what the Church teaches!

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Any one who has the temerity to suggest that this teaching is false, that God “WILL NOT” save any soul without water baptism because He in fact BOUND by His sacraments, is elevating his private “opinion” over the clear, authentic and ordinary teachings of the Church. Just because a Feeneyite thinks he can elevate his private opinion to the same level of Church teaching is irrelevant, though it does demonstrate a certain arrogance.

This whole “well, you don’t know, do you” straw-man is just that, and ignores what the Church actually teaches. I don’t have to know how many souls go to hell to know that hell exists, and I do not have to know how many souls go to heaven without water baptism to know that the Church teaches that God is not bound to His sacraments to effect the same end, and that baptism of blood and baptism of desire do in fact effect this same end, because THAT is what the Church teaches.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Now, where were we; oh yeah, "invincible ignorance".

It's a non-issue.

It is an issue because there are those who, like you, twist the doctrine to their own ends. Besides, I began this thread because it became an issue on another thread, so I really don't care that you do not believe it is an issue.

If it is not issue, hold your tongue - I don't care to hear about your distracting and discredited one-trick pony opinions and your specious accusations of "formal heresy" against the Holy Office Letter as if you actually know what you are talking about.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Br. Andre Marie rejects your “we Feeneyites believe” spin that baptism of desire is true, but rare; for he is on record as saying that baptism of desire is false – that a state of justification “by the desire thereof” is NOT salvific for those who die without the sacrament. So I would suggest that you stop pretending to speak for Feeneyites, when you speak only for yourself.

Citation, please? I am, by the way, seeking to become a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, so I am in periodic contact with Brother Andre Marie.

Br. Andre Marie wrote: “I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are.” (see "Comments" section within http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/)

That is completely different than saying that Baptism of Desire is false or that it never happens.

MRyan wrote:So when you said that “Yes, we ‘Feeneyites" agree, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.” … “Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the [salvific] effects of the Baptism of water” [Baltimore Catechism, Q. 653], the leadership of the St. Benedict Center does not agree with you. If it is held that a state of justification by means of baptism of desire or baptism of blood cannot save without the sacrament, debating whether it is “impossible” for the catechumen to receive it or not is irrelevant.

No, it is not. Read this:

http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html

MRyan wrote:“Private opinion” or not, that is their position. So stop pretending to speak for “Feeneyites” when you disagree with them on such a fundamental matter of salvation.

The publish my comments all the time, without objection. (See the one in the above article.)

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:In an earlier thread, you said that the Holy Office Letter of 1949 is “formally heretical”. I’m still waiting for proof, and a retraction, just as you finally retracted your false accusation (and nonsense) that “the “implicit desire” for Baptism is formally heretical unless the desire becomes explicit.

Here you go:

"However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

This is absolutely false and was changed at the Second Vatican Council. It should have read, "when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God may accept an implicit desire."

Why was the text of the Holy Office letter changed at the Second Vatican Council? Why was the phrase "votum implicitum" dropped at Vatican II??

No, it not false and VCII changed nothing of the Church’s understanding as it is reflected in the Holy Office Letter to Ab Cushing. The Letter confirms that for the Catechumen, who obviously is NOT ignorant of the Catholic Church, his desire to enter the Church must be explicit; however, for those involved in invincible ignorance of the true Church, under the right conditions, “God accepts also an implicit desire [to enter the Church]”. The Letter also teaches:

"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith...." (Protocol Letter Suprema Haec Sacra {122/49} from the Holy Office, 1949).

Your telling us that the Letter “should have read, ‘when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God may accept an implicit desire'" is like saying that the Church erred in Lumen Gentium 14 when it declared:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

Does that mean that they are “members”? It does not; neither does it suggest that the obligation to be Baptized is in any way diminished. But, should those who manifest the requisite desire (and intentions) die without benefit of the Sacrament through no fault of their own, the Church “reckons” them as already baptized and “embraces them as her own”, without giving the "assurance" of salvation.

Nowhere is the claim ever made that those who die without sacramental Baptism in Water can attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision. But, let's say that is what Vatican II or
the Holy Office letter claimed. So what? All that it would mean is that Vatican II taught error. However, that is not a conclusion that we are forced to make, not yet at least:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf

MRyan wrote:The Church and the Holy Office Letter teach that God will accept an implicit desire to enter the Church when that intention is grounded in the right dispositions, and that this implicit desire is salvific when it is animated by a perfect Charity; a Charity which also animates one’s Faith (resulting in supernatural Faith).

No, the Church does not teach this:

"The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude." (CCC, 1257)

It's a non sequitur; if there was a way to Heaven other than Baptism, then the Church would know about it.

MRyan wrote:And that is precisely the reason why the 1997 changes to the English Edition of the CCC included a correction to its misleading presentation of the doctrine (CCC 1281), which originally said this:

“… all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).”

Under the 1997 instruction and correction, the phrase now reads:

“… all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).”

The correction suggests that other conditions must be fulfilled if those who are ignorant of the Church, but are acting under the inspiration of grace, are finally to be saved. This passage references LG 16 which calls this inspiration and good will ... “a preparation for the Gospel", while Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore also taught that such souls who are “ready to obey God,” “[if] they live honest lives … are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace”. And, once again, what is the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace if not the divine light of faith and sanctifying grace? Pope Pius IX also taught that “the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love.” (Singulari Quidem)

Again, no claim of them making it to Heaven without sacramental Baptism. However, quite a flip-flop in theology between the First and Second editions of the CCC.

MRyan wrote:The FACT is, the text of the Holy Office Letter was NOT changed at VCII, but its content was confirmed by Lumen Gentium 16 where it specifically references the Letter:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.)

It was not that “implicit desire” was “dropped”, it is more accurate to say that the “desire” to enter the Church is not even mentioned because the meaning of “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church” is understood in the context of the referenced Holy Office Letter, which makes it clear that an implicit desire to enter the Church is accepted by God, but that this desire must be animated by perfect Charity and supernatural Faith.

Again, faithfully echoing Pope Pius IX, LG 16 goes on to teach “Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

Vatican II consisted of more words than the previous 20 ecumenical Councils combined, yet they nowhere did they state what you are claiming they said. And, once again, nothing about someone dying without sacramental Baptism and going to Heaven.

MRyan wrote:So I would suggest that you stop parroting or rephrasing what the St. Benedict Center says on any given topic and start thinking for yourself (and with the Church), and do your own research, as you did with baptism of desire when you realized that the Church does indeed teach, and that this doctrine is true, that one may be saved by baptism of desire and baptism of blood when the sacrament is “impossible” to receive. Whether you think it ever happens or not is irrelevant to the truth of the teaching itself. So stop twisting this as if your opinion on whether it happens or not matters.

This “blind obedience” to certain “opinions” of the St. Benedict Center can be quite annoying, and is discredited when confronted with the truth. This is no different than your blind obedience to the opinion of some St. Benedict Center member who says that the Church’s teaching on Limbo can mean the opposite of what it says because Limbo is not opposed to the justice of God, as if the Church suggested that it was by allowing for the “hope” of salvation.

The Saint Benedict Centers are simply reiterating the infallible, immutable truths of the Catholic Faith.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:As for "implicit desire" for Baptism, the Roman Catechism is of higher authority than Saint Thomas:

You mean the same Roman Catechism that teaches Baptism of Desire? This particular passage from the Roman Catechism is referring only to those adults (Catechumens) preparing for Baptism, and St. Thomas agrees that the desire to enter the Church must be explicit in this case; but St. Thomas, and the Holy Office Letter, when teaching "implicit desire", is referring to the invincibly ignorant; a subject that is not addressed by the Catechism of Trent, but is addressed by St. Thomas, Pope Pius IX, the H.O. Letter, VCII and the CCC.

They did not mention it, because it does not exist, at least not in a person for very long. Nowhere in Trent do you find the phrase "implicitum."

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And as far as Br. Andre saying "And who would have the temerity to suggest that God cannot or will not provide sacramental baptism for him, even miraculously?", it is not a question of “cannot” or “will not”; it is a question of whether, in His freedom and complete sovereignty over His own sacraments, He is bound to do so.

Well, then you don't know, do you?

Yes, I do know, because THAT is what the Church teaches!

Where? Where has the Church taught that for someone who dies without sacramental Baptism that is possible for that person to be saved?

MRyan wrote:

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Any one who has the temerity to suggest that this teaching is false, that God “WILL NOT” save any soul without water baptism because He in fact BOUND by His sacraments, is elevating his private “opinion” over the clear, authentic and ordinary teachings of the Church. Just because a Feeneyite thinks he can elevate his private opinion to the same level of Church teaching is irrelevant, though it does demonstrate a certain arrogance.

This whole “well, you don’t know, do you” straw-man is just that, and ignores what the Church actually teaches. I don’t have to know how many souls go to hell to know that hell exists, and I do not have to know how many souls go to heaven without water baptism to know that the Church teaches that God is not bound to His sacraments to effect the same end, and that baptism of blood and baptism of desire do in fact effect this same end, because THAT is what the Church teaches.

This is what the Church teaches:

1) The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

2) The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,’ but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do.”

3) God is certainly capable of bringing out the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”

Therefore, the following MUST be true:

“There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you.” (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Br. Andre Marie rejects your “we Feeneyites believe” spin that baptism of desire is true, but rare; for he is on record as saying that baptism of desire is false – that a state of justification “by the desire thereof” is NOT salvific for those who die without the sacrament. So I would suggest that you stop pretending to speak for Feeneyites, when you speak only for yourself.

Citation, please? I am, by the way, seeking to become a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, so I am in periodic contact with Brother Andre Marie.

Br. Andre Marie wrote: “I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are.” (see "Comments" section within http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/)

That is completely different than saying that Baptism of Desire is false or that it never happens.

No, it is NOT any different. You can’t have it both ways. One cannot say “I believe Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are true, and then trun around and say but, “I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament.)” …. Why? Because (he must say) I BELIEVE that to say they are salvific without the sacrament is FALSE! If baptism of desire could be salvific without the sacrament, he would accept it as TRUE (regardless of whether he thought it never happened), its as simple as that.

You wrote that you accept the doctrine, but disagree that it ever happens, as if that has any relevancy to the truth of the teaching. It doesn't, so quit beating that straw-man into the earth - its irrelevant to what the Church teaches.

As to the rest of your nonsense, you have proven to be incapable of following an argument and making a coherent response. And where you suggested that “Nowhere is the claim ever made that those who die without sacramental Baptism in Water can attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision”, but if VCII did teach this, it taught “error”; this is so utterly beyond reality and so obtuse, it is not worth commenting on.

We’re done; I'm not going to waste my time correcting your gibberish.

A few comments on Trent and its dogmatic declaration that the sacraments of Baptism and Penance are alike with respect to necessity, and how this teaching fits perfectly with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, about which Br. Michael (MICM), in his “Reply to Verbum”, actually said: “it is a fact that the Fathers of Trent did not adopt Saint Thomas’ theology about baptism in desire.” Hello?

I will also include some comments on the “official” St. Benedict Center position and see how it stacks up against Trent.

St. Thomas Aquinas, universal Doctor of the Church: “… a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.” (ST, III, Q.66, A.11); and “In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends." (ST, III, Q.66, A.12)

St. Thomas: "Wherefore for the remission of both actual and original sin, a sacrament of the Church is necessary, received either actually, or at least in desire, when a man fails to receive the sacrament actually, through an unavoidable obstacle, and not through contempt. Consequently those sacraments which are ordained as remedies for sin which is incompatible with salvation, are necessary for salvation: and so just as Baptism, whereby original sin is blotted out, is necessary for salvation, so also is the sacrament of Penance." (Suppl. Q.6 A.1 Ad.1)

In Session 14, Ch. II., in describing the differences between the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, the Council of Trent closes this passage by affirming precisely what St. Thomas Aquinas taught, that these two sacraments are alike with respect to necessity:

"And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.”

Again, St. Thomas:

“I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Proverbs 11:14).” (ST, III, Q.65, A.4)

Baptism and Penance (in the case of mortal sin after baptism) are necessary to the individual, simply and absolutely. But how does St. Thomas mean this? He teaches:

“Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; ‘which, with God, counts for the deed’ (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).” (ST, III, Q.68 A.2)

The sacrament of Penance, the Church infallibly and dogmatically declares in Session 14, Ch. II, is necessary unto salvation as Baptism is necessary unto salvation. And how does the Council define the sacrament of Penance as “necessary unto salvation”? Like this:

The Council of Trent: Session 14, Ch. V. On Confession. “From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism”.

And this: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein." (Chapter IV, On Contrition)

Holy Office Letter of 1949 to Archbishop Cushing: “In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).”

Here is the “official” Feeneyite position as articulated by Br. Andre Marie and Br. David Mary, respectfully:

“I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are.”

“4. In Conclusion, Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.” (http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html)

In fact, Br. Michael, in “A Reply to Verbum”, also said “I would say that Father Feeney and Saint Thomas actually were defending the very same thing. The only difference, really, is in their solutions to the problem.” And “On the subject of salvation, Father Feeney said nothing inventive. He merely transmitted the teaching of the saints."

And: "On baptism of desire, he did not believe any differently from Saint Thomas concerning the certainty of salvation for all those who die justified." (http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html)

Really?

In the same “Reply”, he wrote: “You [Bp. Williamson] state that Father Feeney excluded baptism of desire and blood as ‘means of salvation.’ This he did.” And:

This does not mean that justified, but unbaptized, catechumens are not children of God. They are. But they have not yet been “born of God” fully. (John 1:14) Why not? Because the “power,” which has been given them in “receiving Christ” to be made “the sons of God” (John 1:12) has to be fully actualized in the laver of regeneration. They are in grace, but not yet sealed as “sons” and “heirs.”

Let’s unravel the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center. The St. Benedict Center does not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), and hence, anyone translated to justification without the sacrament (by the desire thereof) cannot attain salvation unless he receives the sacrament(s).

Why? Because, while they may be considered “children of God”, they have not yet been “born of God” FULLY (I guess they haven’t been “formally” or “fully” adopted as sons of God). Like the just under the Old Law, their status as “sons of God” has not been “fully actualized” by the merit of Christ’s blood which, apparently, can only be transmitted or “actualized in the laver of regeneration”.

In other words, they may be in a state of sanctifying grace but they are not yet “born of God” in the fulfilled sense as true and adopted sons (at least not “fully” enough for salvation), and thus, they are NOT yet “heirs” to the kingdom because they lack the sacramental seal.

How this “official position” is reconciled with Trent, is anyone’s guess:

Session VI, Ch. IV: By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Ch. VII: This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

The last does NOT say “that a man translated and born again as a son of God becomes just so that he may BECOME an heir to the kingdom IF, and only IF he completes the works of the Law (Baptism) that is still lacking”; no, he becomes just “so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting” and will remain an heir to the kingdom so long as he is perseveres, by grace, in the grace of justification.

A justified man is a “son of God” and an “heir to the Kingdom” – period. If he failed to receive the sacrament out of negligence, he would not be a just man because he would not have a perfect contrition/charity and the intention necessary to be justified by “the desire thereof”.

We must also conclude that “the sanctified but not-fully-justified-man who cannot attain salvation without the sacrament” as defined of the St. Benedict Center, was not infused with the justice of God through the merit of Christ such that he can be said “to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace”; as Session 6, Ch. 16 declares:

we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ.

Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not accepted by the St. Benedict Center as “salvific” means of salvation when the essential effect (sanctifying grace) is transmitted only in voto. The seal of Baptism has been deemed by the St. Benedict Center to be an essential effect of intrinsic necessity for salvation, though I wonder if they realize that the Holy Ghost can provide His own "seal of salvation". I mean, what's one more "theological opinion" when everything is a "theological opinion"?

Baptism of blood and baptism of desire are categorized by the St. Benedict Center as “theological opinions” that are on the same level as their own "theological opinion" that denies the efficacy (for salvation) of sanctifying grace when it is effected by faith and a perfect love/contrition.

So baptism of blood and baptism of desire are “theological opinions” (as opposed to being "authentic ordinary teachings of the Church" and her teaching magisterium) that just happen to be the “theological opinions” of every single medieval theologian and every single Doctor (such as Sts. Augustine, Aquinas, Bernard, Bonaventure, Bellarmine and Liguori); and these “opinions” not only form a universal moral consensus, but there is not a single dissenting voice from any saint, theologian and scholastic commentator since at least the Council of Trent. And, they are such “common theological opinions”, the Catholic Church actually teaches these same “theological opinions” as truths “she has always firmly held”, and has articulated such truths through her authentic and ordinary magisterium through The Roman Catechism of Trent, Canon Law (old and new), VCII, the CCC, a Papal Allocution, various official Papal Letters, a Letter of the Holy Office, a Papal Encyclical and other magisterial documents.

So how “common” is the “theological opinion” that does “not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament)”?

It is so common, 700 years had to pass before Fr. Feeney discovered this “error” of the Doctors, saints and theologians that the Church accepted with such gullibility as doctrines she claims to have “always held with firm conviction”.

Hmmm ….

Please, no more comments on how “regularized” are the various St. Benedict Center factions, and on the fact that they are “allowed” to hold the “rigorous” position of Fr. Feeney. No one is making accusations of “heresy”. Let’s stick to the doctrines and the merits of the respective “theological opinions”, or the lack thereof.

I simply do not see how anyone who accepts justification “by the desire thereof” can reconcile this “non-actualized” theory, that leaves the justified in a state of defective or un-fulfilled non-salvific grace, with the definition of justification as defined by Trent.

Certainly, it is true that the sacrament in re actualizes other effects (such as the seal, and the full remission of temporal punishments, and other benefits), but if a state of sanctifying grace (a ‘defective’ one at that) is not sufficient for salvation, what, since the promulgation of the Gospel, is its purpose?

What I see here is the un-fulfilled justification of the Old Law being paraded anew under the guise of an un-fulfilled form (since the promulgation of the Gospel) allegedly defined by Trent that withholds the very redemptive merit of Christ’s blood that makes one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom.

I can't see it.

MRyan, far from Jehanne talking gibberish he has actually exposed the nonsense (that you adhere to) that baptism of desire/B is a doctrine of the faith.

Mryan wrote:
Please, no more comments on how “regularized” are the various St. Benedict Center factions, and on the fact that they are “allowed” to hold the “rigorous” position of Fr. Feeney. No one is making accusations of “heresy”. Let’s stick to the doctrines and the merits of the respective “theological opinions”, or the lack thereof.

If the Church really does teach baptism of desire/Blood as doctrine then the St. Benedict Center actually would be in heresy. As you agree that they are not heretics the Church then could not be teaching baptism of desire/Blood as a doctrine of the faith.

I simply do not see how anyone who accepts justification “by the desire thereof” can reconcile this “non-actualized” theory, that leaves the justified in a state of defective or un-fulfilled non-salvific grace, with the definition of justification as defined by Trent.

Your inability to see this is could be attributable as much to your own imperfect theology as to every Feeneyite being wrong.
Fr Feeney himself was a renouned theologian and I'm sure was more familiar withTrent than you or I and he still maintained the position he held on sound theological grounds.

Certainly, it is true that the sacrament in re actualizes other effects (such as the seal, and the full remission of temporal punishments, and other benefits), but if a state of sanctifying grace (a ‘defective’ one at that) is not sufficient for salvation, what, since the promulgation of the Gospel, is its purpose?

This contradiction can easily be solved if you consider sacramental Baptism as being its fullfilment.
If catachumens were already in a state of perfect faith and charity then there would be no further need to defer Baptism. The fact that they are receiving instruction in the faith is in order to bring them to that fuller knowledge which in their currant state they lack but so desire. Desire itself cannot be fulfilment otherwise it would not be desire.

What I see here is the un-fulfilled justification of the Old Law being paraded anew under the guise of an un-fulfilled form (since the promulgation of the Gospel) allegedly defined by Trent that withholds the very redemptive merit of Christ’s blood that makes one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom.

I can't see it.

There is no withholding anything as God can and will provide sacramental Baptism to all those who are properly disposed, even if this be done miraculously.
Nothing is impossible to God.

The way I see it; the "nothing is impossible to God" term can be used to support either your position or the Feeneyite position. I believe the Feeneyite position as it concurs with the infallible pronouncements on the necessity of water Baptism and with the Last words of Our Lord before His ascension.
To say that God is not bound by the sacraments is akin to saying that some circumstances are beyond His control (like sudden death) and therefore we must offer God a loophole to deal with those who have escaped his providence.

I think we may have to start a new thread again for Invincible Ignorance.

So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?
and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentecost?

duckbill wrote:So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?
and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentecost?

Perhaps you should start paying attention. I answered these same questions (and a couple more) in the other thread. One more time:

MRyan wrote:

duckbill wrote:So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?

You mean the hypothetical Catechumen who dies before the baptism he desires can be realized. He is not a "member" in the formal sense, but he is united to the Church by the bonds of faith, charity and intention - through the bond of sanctifying grace.

duckbill wrote:and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

No, not until they are united to the Church by the ordinary means of visible unity; or through the invisible bonds of faith and charity. But the latter means is not formal "membership" as it is understood and defined by the Church.

duckbill wrote:Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentacost?

Yes, but I would say it like this: I would say that no one can be saved who is not finally joined to the Mystical Body. Formal membership in the institutional Church is the divinely instituted ordinary means of salvation, which all men are obliged to join without exception; but, like the sacraments, as a divinely instituted aid or instrument of sanctification, it is not necessarily intrinsic to salvation as is sanctifying grace, supernatural Faith, and Charity, which cannot fail to unite one to our Lord and His Mystical Body, outside of which there is no salvation.

duckbill wrote:When does a validly baptized infant lose her/his membership, if they grow-up in a say... a Lutheran family, for example? Or do they ever lose membership?

I don't know exactly when they cease becoming a member, we can only theorize; except to say that a Protestant who rejects (inculpable or not) the truths of the Catholic Faith is no longer a visible member of the Catholic Church.

duckbill wrote:Can a person be a partial member or is this just for institutions?

No one can be a partial formal member of the Church. One is either a member of the visible Church, or one isn't.

duckbill wrote:Membership I think is the key to the whole baptism of desire & baptism of blood debate.

For a Feeneyite, formal membership is the key, for they recognize no other possible unity with the Church; at least none that can result in salvation. And in this, they are in error.

columba wrote:MRyan, far from Jehanne talking gibberish he has actually exposed the nonsense (that you adhere to) that baptism of desire/B is a doctrine of the faith.

Mryan wrote:
Please, no more comments on how “regularized” are the various St. Benedict Center factions, and on the fact that they are “allowed” to hold the “rigorous” position of Fr. Feeney. No one is making accusations of “heresy”. Let’s stick to the doctrines and the merits of the respective “theological opinions”, or the lack thereof.

If the Church really does teach baptism of desire/Blood as doctrine then the St. Benedict Center actually would be in heresy. As you agree that they are not heretics the Church then could not be teaching baptism of desire/Blood as a doctrine of the faith.

The only things Jehanne exposed is his inability to respond to actual arguments, and his inability to stay on topic.

Of course, you are not much better since, even after all this time, you can’t seem to retain or understand anything that doesn’t fit into your preconceived and erroneous notions. Your total lack of comprehension of what a non-revealed doctrine of the Church is - is a case in point. For some reason, you are under the hypnotic spell of some quack who has told you that the only “doctrines” of the Church are those that have been defined or explicitely revealed.

How many times have we gone over this? Do I really have to spell this out for you again when it goes in one ear and out the other?

How can anyone be guilty of heresy for rejecting a non-defined doctrine, even if it is, as the Church teaches, an authentic and ordinary teaching of the Church, and a teaching she says she has always held with firm conviction? Have I ever said that baptism of desire/baptism of blood are “de fide” doctrines “of the faith”? Do I need to spell out once again the teachings of the CDF in its “Commentary on the Profession Fidei”, and in its other magisterial documents?

Was the teaching therein (presented numerous times on this forum) on the various levels of Church teaching and the respective degree of submission due to each -- simply so beyond your comprehension that you do not know the difference between defined dogma/revealed truth and non-revealed doctrines proposed by the authentic and ordinary Magisterium?

I can see this is a waste of time when such basic fundamentals are lost on you. You’re spin on this is actually pretty appalling for someone who purports to be knowledgeable about such things.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I simply do not see how anyone who accepts justification “by the desire thereof” can reconcile this “non-actualized” theory, that leaves the justified in a state of defective or un-fulfilled non-salvific grace, with the definition of justification as defined by Trent.

Your inability to see this is could be attributable as much to your own imperfect theology as to every Feeneyite being wrong.
Fr Feeney himself was a renouned theologian and I'm sure was more familiar with Trent than you or I and he still maintained the position he held on sound theological grounds.

While a highly respected Catholic poet, author and theologian, Fr. Feeney was more renowned for his poetry and popular tomes than for his theological scholarship. Sorry to say, but Fr. Feeney was no longer “renowned” when his theology evolved (did a 180 degree shift) sometime around 1952, especially when “Bread of Life” was published. I am not criticizing his scholarship when I say that Bread of Life was not a work of theology, for it was never intended to be. Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that Fr. Feeney’s newly formed “opinions” were completely opposed to the “common” theology and doctrines of the Doctors and the universal moral consensus of the theologians, and the teachings of the Church.

How “sound” is someone’s theology when it represents the solitary opinion of one theologian?

As Br. Thomas Mary Sennott confirmed, what passes for “theology” in the opinions of Fr. Feeney (“a professional rhetorician”) was prone to rhetorical exaggeration he called "de Feeney definita." Listen carefully to the words of Br. Sennott:

He [Fr. Feeney] used to say "my danger is that I can make anything sound plausible." Of course he never did this with some well established truth. All Father Feeney's speculations on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are of this de Feeney definite variety. In other words they are pure speculations and nothing else. (Is Laisneyism Catholic)

In order to reconcile his rigid and novel theory on "fulfilled Justification" (by water Baptism alone) with Trent, he developed his “theology” on Justification to where “the desire thereof” (Session 6, Ch. 4) no longer represented the means by which someone may be translated to Justification through the bonds of faith and charity as the Church has always understood it; this particular Justification of Trent came to represent an “unfulfilled” and even a defective form of sanctifying grace that could not make one an adopted son of God, let alone be a grace sufficient for salvation, without being “fulfilled” in water Baptism.

As such, this novel theory on Justification is “pure speculation and nothing else”.

Remember, we are not speaking about the wholly orthodox opinion that posits that while Justification effected by “the desire thereof” is that true justification defined by Trent, God will not fail to “perfect” this bond of salvific unity through the organic incorporation of an already Justified soul in the waters of Baptism; we are speaking of a wholly defective form of Justification since the promulgation of the Gospel that cannot make one an adopted son of God or save anyone who is not finally baptized in the sacrament.

If you want to compare these novel speculations to the common and universal doctrine of the theologians and the established teaching of the Church on the meaning of Session 6, Ch. 4 and the salvific efficacy of justification “by the desire thereof” (faith/contrition/charity and intention) when necessity prevents the reception of the sacrament, go right ahead; I’m sure you will. But you give far too much credit to the “theology” of Fr. Feeney when even one of his closet religious allies admitted that his “theology” on baptism of desire and baptism of blood “are pure speculations and nothing else.”

You know, columba, just like the “pure speculations and nothing else” you have the temerity to call the universal moral consensus of theologians and the authentic and ordinary teachings of the Catholic Church on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Certainly, it is true that the sacrament in re actualizes other effects (such as the seal, and the full remission of temporal punishments, and other benefits), but if a state of sanctifying grace (a ‘defective’ one at that) is not sufficient for salvation, what, since the promulgation of the Gospel, is its purpose?

This contradiction can easily be solved if you consider sacramental Baptism as being its fullfilment.

If catachumens were already in a state of perfect faith and charity then there would be no further need to defer Baptism. The fact that they are receiving instruction in the faith is in order to bring them to that fuller knowledge which in their currant state they lack but so desire. Desire itself cannot be fulfillment otherwise it would not be desire.

You just do not understand that the Church has no way of knowing if a soul is already sanctified in the bonds of faith and charity, as if she would actually “defer” the sacrament even if she could know. Neither do you understand that the sacrament is necessary to salvation as both a necessity of precept and means and that it would be gravely sinful to intentionally defer or withhold the sacrament when there are no obstacles preventing its reception. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Your comments are problematic on many levels. Either Trent defined what Justification IS (since the promulgation of the Gospel), or she defined two types of Justification; one that is salvific (Baptism) and one that does not truly justify and make one an adopted son until it is fulfilled with the transmission of the merit of Christ’s blood in Baptism. The last is nothing more than the unfulfilled justification of the Old Law.

So tell us columba, do you think Trent was defining two types of justification in Session 6. Ch. 4 with the words “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written …”? Are we to understand that “or the desire thereof” is simply one of the dispositions necessary for justification that can be effected by water Baptism alone, and that “or the desire thereof” CANNOT effect a translation to THAT justification of Christ “since the promulgation of the Gospel”?

This is not to say that the Holy Ghost does not operate on souls as He did under the Old Law (without or prior to an abiding and substantial habitation), it means that the Feeneyite argument that Trent is simply re-affirming a two-fold vivification and justification is entirely misplaced, as Pope Leo XIII taught:

But if they [those under the Old Law] also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, for "as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant, but is under tutors and governors" (Gal. iv., I, 2). Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much labour, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., 8.). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20). (Divinum Illud Munus, 1897)

We are not speaking about how, in the normal process of justification, one may in fact be justified by a perfect contrition/charity prior to receiving the laver of regeneration, we are speaking about the definition of Justification that Trent defines as a translation and re-birth to a state of sanctification as sons of God and heirs to the Kingdom: “as it is written …”, and how that state of Justification is effected, by Baptism, or the desire thereof.

The “Feeney” doctrine on Justification (as the St. Benedict Center presents it) is opposed to the universal understanding of the theologians and the understanding of the Church. It is also opposed to the clear meaning of the words and to common sense. To call this “pure theological speculation” “sound” is to give it way too much credit. It is theologically unsound and appears to me to be a desperate attempt to reconcile one’s novel theory with a dogmatic text.

In fact, I may have been too severe with Duckbill when I told him that his theory that initial justification can be effected by Baptism alone is opposed to the Feeneyite doctrine; for, as we have seen, Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center variety do not believe that anyone can be truly justified as adopted sons of God and heirs to the kingdom without the sacrament of Baptism.

A Justification that cannot make one an adopted son of God is not, since the promulgation of the Gospel, Justification; at least not the Justification defined by Trent.

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
What I see here is the un-fulfilled justification of the Old Law being paraded anew under the guise of an un-fulfilled form (since the promulgation of the Gospel) allegedly defined by Trent that withholds the very redemptive merit of Christ’s blood that makes one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom.

I can't see it.

There is no withholding anything as God can and will provide sacramental Baptism to all those who are properly disposed, even if this be done miraculously.
Nothing is impossible to God.

The way I see it; the "nothing is impossible to God" term can be used to support either your position or the Feeneyite position. I believe the Feeneyite position as it concurs with the infallible pronouncements on the necessity of water Baptism and with the Last words of Our Lord before His ascension.
To say that God is not bound by the sacraments is akin to saying that some circumstances are beyond His control (like sudden death) and therefore we must offer God a loophole to deal with those who have escaped his providence.

The Church teaches that God is not bound to His sacraments – the very sacraments He instituted to aid in and effect our sanctification as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling. As miserable creatures, we cannot be trusted to remain in grace, and without the sacraments and without the aid of grace, we would perish.

The Church teaches that God may provide the grace of the sacraments to those He so wills, whenever He wills; and she doesn’t tempt God by “defining” under what conditions he may do so. She leaves Him free to dispense grace as He wills, even if she knows that His favored instrumental means are the very sacraments He instituted for our sanctification.

You reject the wisdom of the Church, you reject her authentic and ordinary teachings, and you deny altogether that she teaches any such thing as baptism of blood or baptism of desire, and God’s freedom with respect to His sacraments and grace.

Rather, you set the Church in opposition to herself and pit one magisteium against another, one pope against another and play a “hierarchy of truths” game where the truth you claim to hold is opposed to the doctrine the Church teaches.

You are an authority of one, as evidenced by your claim that you hold to the correct “interpretation” of the Church’s dogmas while the Church teaches “nonsense” in her ordinary magisterial teachings.

columba wrote:I think we may have to start a new thread again for Invincible Ignorance.

It wouldn’t do any good. We would still be subjected to Jehanna’s version of the Feeneyite dogma on Baptism.

MRyan wrote:

duckbill wrote:So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?
and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentecost?

Perhaps you should start paying attention. I answered these same questions (and a couple more) in the other thread. One more time:

MRyan wrote:

duckbill wrote:So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?

You mean the hypothetical Catechumen who dies before the baptism he desires can be realized. He is not a "member" in the formal sense, but he is united to the Church by the bonds of faith, charity and intention - through the bond of sanctifying grace.

duckbill wrote:and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

No, not until they are united to the Church by the ordinary means of visible unity; or through the invisible bonds of faith and charity. But the latter means is not formal "membership" as it is understood and defined by the Church.

duckbill wrote:Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentacost?

Yes, but I would say it like this: I would say that no one can be saved who is not finally joined to the Mystical Body. Formal membership in the institutional Church is the divinely instituted ordinary means of salvation, which all men are obliged to join without exception; but, like the sacraments, as a divinely instituted aid or instrument of sanctification, it is not necessarily intrinsic to salvation as is sanctifying grace, supernatural Faith, and Charity, which cannot fail to unite one to our Lord and His Mystical Body, outside of which there is no salvation.

duckbill wrote:When does a validly baptized infant lose her/his membership, if they grow-up in a say... a Lutheran family, for example? Or do they ever lose membership?

I don't know exactly when they cease becoming a member, we can only theorize; except to say that a Protestant who rejects (inculpable or not) the truths of the Catholic Faith is no longer a visible member of the Catholic Church.

duckbill wrote:Can a person be a partial member or is this just for institutions?

No one can be a partial formal member of the Church. One is either a member of the visible Church, or one isn't.

duckbill wrote:Membership I think is the key to the whole baptism of desire & baptism of blood debate.

For a Feeneyite, formal membership is the key, for they recognize no other possible unity with the Church; at least none that can result in salvation. And in this, they are in error.

I apologize for missing your response on the other thread and thank you for posting it again

From what you are saying it seems to be equivalent to the old "belonging to the soul of the Church is enough" trick. You say they are members of the body but saying it doesn't make it so.

Pope Pius XII, MEDIATOR DEI--On the Sacred Liturgy, 1947:
#43."In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not
been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members
of Christ."
ALL Christian have this distinction= Sacramental Baptism.
Since baptism of desire does not give the sacramental seal those with baptism of desire are not eligible to receive any of the sacraments (beside Baptism of course )

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943:
#18:"Through the waters of Baptism those who are
born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments."

Being eligible to receive the Eucharist is a necessity requirement of being considered as part of the Mystical Body.

1 Cor. 10:17: "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

Haydock commentary:
"We being many, are one bread. Or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread.
For it is by our communicating with Christ and with one another, in
this blessed Sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and
made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely
united together."

The ability of partaking of the One "Bread" is not in the baptism of desire since they don't have the seal.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943:
#
22,: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the
Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true
faith.”


You say that the sacraments are only instrumental causes, implying that they are not absolutely necessary. But the humanity of Christ is the instrumental cause of our salvation. But no Christan can disqualify the absolute necessity of Christ's humanity for our salvation once it has been wrought.

SUMMA:

Reply to Objection 2: God's justice is the first cause of our resurrection,
whereas Christ's Resurrection is the secondary, and as it were the
instrumental cause. But although the power of the principal cause is not
restricted to one instrument determinately, nevertheless since it works
through this instrument, such instrument causes the effect. So, then, the
Divine justice in itself is not tied down to Christ's Resurrection as a
means of bringing about our resurrection: because God could deliver us in
some other way than through Christ's Passion and Resurrection, as already
stated (Question [46], Article [2]). But having once decreed to deliver us in this way,
it is evident that Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours.
http://www.stjamescatholic.org/summa/TP/TP056.html

All salvation come thru Jesus' Humanity joined to the Godhead. There is not another way for our salvation. While it is true that God could have chosen any number of ways to save us, once He has declared that His Body Soul and Divinity are necessary for our salvation the humanity of Christ is now a necessity of means, although an instrumental cause, there is no other way for us to be saved apart from Jesus'-Body Soul and Divinity and so it goes with Baptism, which is the gate to enter the Church.

The Sacrament of Baptism, while an instrumental cause it is also a necessity of means to our salvation and justification. It is how we are joined to Christ and receive His grace. We are grafted into Christ thru Baptism (cf.Romans 11:17-25)

Jn. 3:5-"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

These words are to be taken literally according to the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Church.

I have to agree with MRyan here.
The St. Benedict Center justification without Baptism theory is problematic. Although I think it helps people to see the Old Testament in a new light, i.e. waiting for Christ.

Read this:

http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html

Jehanne wrote:Read this:

http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html

Good article. So what is your point?

Saint Thomas never equated Baptism of Desire with sacramental Baptism of Water:

"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, 'He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,' a gloss says: 'He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.'" (ST, III, 69, 5)

If the One and Triune God can provide "grace and virtues" through our faith in Christ, then we, "being confident of this very thing, that he, who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus," (Philippians 1:6) then He is certainly capable of bringing sacramental Baptism in Water to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.

I was thinking. Why would it be possible that ANYone can administer baptism, even an atheist, as long as the recipient desires it and the matter and form is observed, doing what the Church does, if baptism isn't absolutely necessary?

I mean only a priest can administer all the other sacraments (marriage is seeming to be an exception- this seems to be debated between east and west)

God made it so easy to receive baptism and that anyone can do it because it is so necessary. If baptism of desire were true then it wouldn't be necessary to let any lay person administer it. In confession only a priest can administer it, and perfect contrition seems only available to the baptized not to the unbaptized.

duckbill wrote:
From what you are saying it seems to be equivalent to the old "belonging to the soul of the Church is enough" trick. You say they are members of the body but saying it doesn't make it so.

To belong or to be united to the Church in the bonds of grace, faith and charity does not make one an actual “member” of the visible Body, and your desperate attempt to pigeon-hole my argument into the old “soul of the Church trick” is itself a trick. You can’t find any real fault with my orthodox presentation of Church teaching so you twist what I say into some “equivalent" fallacy condemned by the Church, but this is really just the product of your over-active imagination and sloppy thinking.

In fact, you not only suggest that St. Robert Bellarmine, whose definition of Church membership is identical to that found in Mystici Corporis Christi by Pope Pius XII, “erred” when he said that Catechumens belong to the “soul of the Church”; but you also suggest that Pope Pius XII “erred” when he quite clearly taught that:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.” (Allocution to midwives, 1951)

Pope Pius XII speaks of this act of love in Mystici Corporis Christi:

73. But if the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in His Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. If even in the natural order the love of friendship is something supremely noble, what shall we say of that supernatural love, which God infuses in our hearts? "God is charity and he that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him." The effect of this charity - such would seem to be God's law - is to compel Him to enter into our loving hearts to return love for love, as He said: "If anyone love me..., my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him." Charity then, more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ.

I noticed that Cowboy made the comment that this act of love that compels God to enter into our hearts “seems only available to the baptized not to the unbaptized”, but his “thinking” on this is opposed to the “thinking” of Pope Pius XII who said “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; and is opposed to the universal consensus of saints and theologians who say otherwise, as does the Church. But what else is new when the novel “Bill Strom” theory that you promote tells us that no one may be justified by faith and an act of perfect contrition/charity (desire) without the sacrament of Baptism?

But poor Pope Pius XII, in his own Allocution he does not seem to know what he is talking about, isn’t that right, Duckbill? Isn’t this the old “soul of the Church trick” where Pope Pius XII actually suggests that under certain circumstances “it is not always required that a person be incorporated into the Church actually, but it is necessary to be united at least by desire and longing” and that “This desire must be animated by perfect charity, and the person must have supernatural faith.” (1949 Holy Office Letter approved by Pope Pius XII)?

And is this the old “hierarchy of truths” trick where your flawed interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi pulls rank on some “fallible” papal Allocution by the same pope who (you would suggest) speaks with a double-mind, the same “double-mind” as popes Innocent III, Pius IX, Benedict XV, John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI; and the same “double-mind” we see manifested in Trent (your novel theory on justification notwithstanding), Roman Catechisms, Canon Law, VCII, etc. etc?

Do you ever tire of telling the popes that they are wrong on a matter of faith relating directly to a matter of salvation? Do you ever tire of saying that the universal moral consensus of saints and theologians, and the Church’s own understanding of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, are in error with respect to its “true” meaning? I mean, where did these theologians and the popes learn their Latin; know what I mean?

Now, it is clear that the Church teaches that one may be united to the Mystical Body in the bonds of faith and charity without necessarily being united in a visible incorporation through the bonds of baptism, faith, and the sacraments (and subjection to the Holy Father); and yet, the very same Encyclical that defined membership in the Body of the Catholic Church suggests that those who are formally separated from the visible Church may have a relationship or an orientation towards the Church through an unconscious desire and longing (being open and oriented towards the true Church); but that this desire and longing cannot assure anyone of his salvation since, in this uncertain state, they remain deprived of the many other gifts and helps that can be found only in the organic unity of the Catholic Church:

We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church … and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.[196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with [or orientation towards] the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.

There is NO contradiction between “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith” and “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”¸ because the former defines and pertains only to formal and visible membership and incorporation in the Body, while the latter concerns an invisible or “virtual incorporation” (Aquinas) through the bonds of faith and charity when a visible incorporation is prevented by some insurmountable necessity.

Your attempt to categorize the latter as some “soul of the Church trick” only reveals your total lack of comprehension of what is meant by the term “soul of the Church”. There is definitely a heterodox sense given to this term when it suggests that there is salvation outside the Body of the Church by belonging to the “Soul of the Church”, as if the Holy Ghost can be separated from the Body and as if there are two "Churches" - a visible (human) and an invisible (spiritual) one. But that is NOT how St. Bellarmine used the term.

As Fr. Fenton wrote: “The men who have applied the terms body and soul of the Church to the distinction condemned by the Holy Father have twisted metaphors found in Scripture and in the De Ecclesia Militante of St. Robert Bellarmine into meanings which they were never meant to convey.”

So it is not the term itself that was condemned by the Holy Father, but its improper usage. On the old Bellarmine (sede) forum, there is a link to Fr. Fenton’s article here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fento ... ndSoul.pdf¸ where these distinctions are explained. I also agree with the comments of John Lane where he said:

Membership is a very definite concept in sacred theology. A member of the Church is a component part of the Church, and is therefore necessarily visible, because the Church is visible. If somebody is joined to the soul of the Church, that is, if somebody is in the state of grace, and therefore is within the Church, but is not yet a member (or, to say the same thing in other words, if the person is within the Church by desire), then he is not necessarily visibly united to the Church. Now, to bring into the terminology describing such a state the word "member" (as in "member of the soul of the Church") is to confuse the whole matter and to imply that there are two bodies - one visible and on invisible. But this is a grave error. There is only one body, of perfect unity, visible and necessary for all for salvation. One may belong to it actually or by desire.

That being said, it not necessarily unorthodox to use the term “member” when speaking of a virtual or invisible membership, but I would agree that to use it in the context of "member of the soul of the Church" is heterodox at worse, and confusing at best.

One may belong invisibly to the visible Body (the only Body), but there is no such thing as belonging to an invisible Body.

duckbill wrote:

Pope Pius XII, MEDIATOR DEI--On the Sacred Liturgy, 1947:
#43."In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ."

ALL Christian have this distinction= Sacramental Baptism.

Since baptism of desire does not give the sacramental seal those with baptism of desire are not eligible to receive any of the sacraments (beside Baptism of course)

You have not shown how this is opposed to what Pope Pius XII taught in his Allocution to midwives, to Mystici Corporis Christi, or to the Roman Catechisms or to any magisterial document that teaches Baptism of Desire. Those who have not been cleaned in the purifying stream are NOT members of Christ in the formal sense of visible membership in the one Body, but this does NOT mean that they cannot be united to Christ and His Body in the invisible bonds of faith and charity (desire).

You should stop this game of pretending that the Church does not understand her own doctrines, that she is opposed to her own dogmas, and that she has been teaching error for these many centuries.

duckbill wrote:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943:
#18:"Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments."

Being eligible to receive the Eucharist is a necessity requirement of being considered as part of the Mystical Body.

The ability of partaking of the One "Bread" is not in the baptism of desire since they don't have the seal.

Please explain why being eligible to receive the Eucharist is necessary to salvation for someone who will never receive the Eucharist? Your syllogism is false because your premise that no one may be united to Christ and His Body through the bonds of faith and charity is false.

In fact, I consider it a heresy to deny Trent’s de fide teaching that one may be justified by “the desire thereof” as the Church understands, and has always understood, this teaching (meaning that faith, charity/contrition and intention may effect one’s translation to justification).

I’m still waiting for you to produce a single saint, pope, theologian, Doctor or pope who, since the Council of Trent, denied this understanding and promoted the “Bill Strom” or some other layman’s or non-professional Latinist’s tortured “justification by water Baptism alone” theory.

I’ll respond to your misplaced and flawed “the humanity of Christ is the instrumental cause of our salvation” (and?) argument is a separate thread. You really missed the boat on this one and if you really think that you can cite St. Thomas Aquinas against St. Thomas Aquinas, you are sadly mistaken. St. Thomas was neither confused, nor mistaken, but you are.

Jehanne wrote:Saint Thomas never equated Baptism of Desire with sacramental Baptism of Water:

So, who said he did?

Jehanne wrote:If the One and Triune God can provide "grace and virtues" through our faith in Christ, then we, "being confident of this very thing, that he, who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus," (Philippians 1:6) then He is certainly capable of bringing sacramental Baptism in Water to whomever He deems to be worthy of it.

So, who said He is isn't capable?

And isn't a justified state of grace, of Christ living IN us as His adopted sons and heirs to the kingdom, also considered that "perfection" He began "in you"? Isn't our model of "perfection" based on the holiness of our Lord who makes us holy?

Is every justified soul alike in holiness and is there some necessity that compels our Lord to "perfect" each soul in equal "perfect" measure?

Why is martyrdom considered a more perfect form of justification than that effected by water baptism?

And what has any of this to do with the Church's teaching that while He binds us to the sacraments, He is not necessarily bound by His sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace or the grace of the sacraments?

MRyan wrote:And what has any of this to do with the Church's teaching that while He binds us to the sacraments, He is not necessarily bound by His sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace or the grace of the sacraments?

You love pounding on open doors. You act like the fact that the One and Triune God is "not necessarily bound by His sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace or the grace of the sacraments" (which Father Feeney and his followers all agree is absolutely true) that this somehow "proves" that Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood, when they occur, means that sacramental Baptism in Water cannot (and, indeed will not and must not) occur, that the "Three Baptisms" are somehow mutually exclusive of one another, and this viewpoint is just absurd.

You seem to be trying to "convince" us that there will be, in fact, people in Heaven who have died without Sacramental Baptism of Water, and as Catholics, we are required to believe in this, and of course, the Church has never demanded such a belief of us. For the record, I believe in both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and that both "baptisms," while not sacramental, do transmit sanctifying grace, especially, Baptism of Blood. I also believe that the same God, the One and Triune God, who is the one transmitting the grace via Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, will always bring the additional grace of sacramental Baptism in Water. So, I believe, it is possible for an individual to experience "all Three" Baptisms, which, I believe, would confer the highest form of grace available to us mortal human beings.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And what has any of this to do with the Church's teaching that while He binds us to the sacraments, He is not necessarily bound by His sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace or the grace of the sacraments?

You love pounding on open doors. You act like the fact that the One and Triune God is "not necessarily bound by His sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace or the grace of the sacraments" (which Father Feeney and his followers all agree is absolutely true) that this somehow "proves" that Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood, when they occur, means that sacramental Baptism in Water cannot (and, indeed will not and must not) occur, that the "Three Baptisms" are somehow mutually exclusive of one another, and this viewpoint is just absurd.

I do not love pounding open doors, but I do fight to leave open the doors opened by the Church that certain Feeneyites try to close.

But this just proves that I was right and that you are incapable of responding to actual arguments and to Church teaching.

You admit that God is not bound by the sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace (but you have failed to address my arguments demonstrating that the St. Benedict Center holds that this type of sanctifying grace “by the desire thereof” is an "unfulfilled" and deficient form of Justification and is thus deficient for salvation in that it does not make one an adopted son of God without water Baptism), but at no time have I ever argued that “sacramental Baptism in Water cannot (and, indeed will not and must not) occur”, and “that the "Three Baptisms" are somehow mutually exclusive of one another”.

Such an incredibly false and "absurd" characterization of my arguments - there is simply no excuse for it. Neither is there any excuse for this:

You seem to be trying to "convince" us that there will be, in fact, people in Heaven who have died without Sacramental Baptism of Water, and as Catholics, we are required to believe in this, and of course, the Church has never demanded such a belief of us.

Why do you respond with such utter absurdity to my posts? Do you enjoy antagonizing me by deliberately mangling and misrepresenting everything that I present on this forum?

I don’t care what you believe “for the record”, but you really need to stop this when you are incapable of making an honest rebuttal that addresses my actual arguments. It seems you have hi-jacked every singe thread of mine with your St. Benedict Center obsession and your mind-numbing spin on what “we Feeneyites” really believe, and I’m getting tired of your vacuous and single-themed responses that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Either you are simply incapable of understanding my arguments, or you are too intellectually lazy to make the effort. Either way, I don’t appreciate your insulting taunts, false accusations and appalling misrepresentations.

"Absurd", indeed; and it’s really getting a bit old.

MRyan wrote:You admit that God is not bound by the sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace (but you have failed to address my arguments demonstrating that the St. Benedict Center holds that this type of sanctifying grace “by the desire thereof” is an "unfulfilled" and deficient form of Justification and is thus deficient for salvation in that it does not make one an adopted son of God without water Baptism...

I think that this is your fundamental misunderstanding of the teachings of Father Feeney. As I have told you before, the Bread of Life was not a precise theological treatise; it was a polemic, as evidenced by the fact that large portions of it were written in the second person, which does not occur in the theological manuals. Father Feeney, for the record, was agnostic about the fate of a catechumen who died without sacramental Baptism in Water. Of course, agnosticism is the only position that one could take in such a "circumstance," (which, of course, Father Feeney believed never occurred for a catechumen who had perfect charity and perfect contrition) because how could you possibly judge if someone truly had "perfect charity" and "perfect contrition" or not, especially, when we ourselves cannot possibly make such a judgment about our own spiritual state, let alone trying to make a similar judgment about another individual? Of course, only the One and Triune God could make such a judgment. Besides, it would also be impossible in such a circumstance to prove that someone was not, in fact, already sacramentally Baptized in Water.

As for Baptism of Desire being "deficient," we've been down this road. It is deficient, irregardless if it is salvific or not:

"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, 'He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,' a gloss says: 'He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.'" (ST, III, 69, 5)

Now, given God's perfect love for us (and, the One and Triune God, being a Perfect Being, His love for us is infinite), it is absurd to say that He does not all of us to experience the fullness of grace that only comes in sacramental Baptism in Water. So, to paraphrase Brother Andre Marie, "Who would have the temerity to suggest that what the One and Triune God wills He will not bring about, even through extraordinary or even miraculous means?"

duckbill wrote:You say that the sacraments are only instrumental causes, implying that they are not absolutely necessary. But the humanity of Christ is the instrumental cause of our salvation. But no Christan can disqualify the absolute necessity of Christ's humanity for our salvation once it has been wrought.

SUMMA:[snip]

No, it was the Council of Trent that declared that the sacraments, beginning with baptism, are the instrumental causes of justification, and I have implied nothing with regard to “absolute necessity” that the Church does not already explicitly teach.

The Church infallibly teaches that the sacraments of Baptism and Penance (for mortal sin after baptism) are absolutely necessary to every individual; the essential fruits of which must be realized at least in desire. It was the Council of Trent that dogmatically declared that the sacraments of Baptism and Penance ARE ALIKE with respect to NECESSITY; and it was the Council of Trent that dogmatically declared that the translation to justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, “or the desire thereof”.

It was the Catechism of Trent that taught “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

It was the Council of Trent that dogmatically declared in Session 7, Canon 4: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification … let him be anathema.”

And it was the Council of Trent that dogmatically declared in Session 6, Chapter XVI, that “… we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified … to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace…”

I was not the one who said, for example, that “nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments”, it was Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum.

And I did not force the hand of the College of Rheims (some 35 years after Trent) to comment in its Rheims New Testament on the Church’s understanding of John 3:5 such that “God which hath not bound His grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but some remediless necessity could not obtain it.” (The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582, Annotations, John 3:5).

Neither did I force the hand of the Church to teach this same doctrine over and over again in her official documents, e.g., in Canon Law (1917 and 1983), in official papal Letters, in her universal Roman Catechisms (Trent and the CCC), in a papal Allocution, in an ecumenical Vatican Council and in the official documents of the Holy Office and the CDF.

And you dare to suggest that the “official” position of the Church is opposed to this universal understanding of the Church’s own dogmatic teaching? Who are you trying to kid? You want Catholics to reject the constant teaching of the Church and its teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire in the CCC, for example, in favor of your flawed private opinion that suggests that the Church has been teaching error since the Council of Trent?

Good luck with that.

duckbill wrote:But the humanity of Christ is the instrumental cause of our salvation. But no Christan can disqualify the absolute necessity of Christ's humanity for our salvation once it has been wrought.

All salvation come thru Jesus' Humanity joined to the Godhead. There is not another way for our salvation. While it is true that God could have chosen any number of ways to save us, once He has declared that His Body Soul and Divinity are necessary for our salvation the humanity of Christ is now a necessity of means, although an instrumental cause, there is no other way for us to be saved apart from Jesus'-Body Soul and Divinity and so it goes with Baptism, which is the gate to enter the Church.

This is your fundamental error. Baptism of desire does not in any way “disqualify the absolute necessity of Christ's humanity for our salvation”. Allow St. Thomas Aquinas to clear up your confusion regarding the difference between a separate instrument (e.g., the sacrament of Baptism) and a united instrument (e.g, Christ’s humanity), with the latter being the essential mover (cause) of the former:

Third Part, Question: 62, Article: 5, Whether the sacraments of the New Law derive their power from Christ's Passion?

I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]) a sacrament in causing grace works after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is twofold; the one, separate, as a stick, for instance; the other, united, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by means of the united instrument, as a stick by the hand. Now the principal efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom Christ's humanity is as a united instrument, whereas the sacrament is as a separate instrument. Consequently, the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ's Godhead through His humanity.

So baptism and penance and the other sacraments derive their justifying and saving power from Christ's Passion and Resurrection. As a “united instrument” and principle agent; however, Christ’s humanity cannot be a “separate instrument” as are the sacraments; and thus, with respect to their operation as instrumental causes and to necessity, the united instrument of our Lord’s humanity is not like the separate instruments of the sacraments. As principal agent, our Lord’s sacred humanity is intrinsic to the power and efficacy of the sacraments, to the divine life of the soul, and to our bodily resurrection; with the sacraments being the ordinary, chief and instrumental means of giving life to the soul, and to effect what they signify.

Said another way, in Q. 61, A.1, St. Thomas teaches:

Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rm. 6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."

But neither does it follow that the sacraments, as separate instruments, are the only means for applying the essential effects of the sacraments to the soul.

St. Thomas alludes to this in Q. 62, A. 6, where he says:

... the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and the sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior things … It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's Passion, which is the cause of man's righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old Law did not.

Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's Passion, just as we are.

In Q.66, A.11, St. Thomas get quite specific, and completely demolishes your egregious error:

I answer that, As stated above (Question [62], Article [5]), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. [...]

Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [60], Article [1]), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

It should be clear by now that the united instrument of Christ’s humanity is not like the separate instrument of the sacraments; at least not in your flawed and forced analogy of their respective roles as “instrumental cause” in giving life to the soul.

I think it’s fair to say that St. Thomas Aquinas had much firmer grasp on his own teachings than you do.

Duckbill, it’s back to the drawing board for you.

Vatican II, Ad Gentes

Chapter I

7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.

Gentleman - and of course I do not direct this at MRyan - the above is consistent with the perennial, unchanging truth pronounced by the Church for millenia. All must be incorporated by baptism into the Church for salvation. Incorporated is consistent with the terminology of St. Robert Bellarmine and all the doctors and theologians when they speak of the necessity of being "joined" to the Church in some way; the Church is Christ's body, and those "joined" to Christ through faith and charity are joined to the Church.

In ways known to God - including the angelic messengers and internal inspiration spoken of by St. Thomas - those who to the eyes of men appear "inculpably ignorant of the Gospel" are joined to Christ and the Church and thereby incorporated into the Body, as "all" must be to be saved.

All men must of necessity be "baptized" in the Spirit. MRyan and I have laid this out repeatedly, MRyan much more comprehensively than I - just look at his recent presentation of the teaching of St. Thomas on the necessity of baptism.

No infallible magisterial text has ever said that all men must receive baptism by water (i.e. the sacrament) to be saved.

Let's get this done already. One text at a time to make this easy and manageable. Show us where the Church has said that baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

To quote Pat Benatar: hit us with your best shot.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:You admit that God is not bound by the sacraments to transmit sanctifying grace (but you have failed to address my arguments demonstrating that the St. Benedict Center holds that this type of sanctifying grace “by the desire thereof” is an "unfulfilled" and deficient form of Justification and is thus deficient for salvation in that it does not make one an adopted son of God without water Baptism...

I think that this is your fundamental misunderstanding of the teachings of Father Feeney. As I have told you before, the Bread of Life was not a precise theological treatise; it was a polemic, as evidenced by the fact that large portions of it were written in the second person, which does not occur in the theological manuals.

No, it is your fundamental failing to address my arguments. When I respond to one of your broken-record renditions of what Fr. Feeney “really” believed by citing him precisely and commenting on what I believe are his flawed arguments, you respond by ignoring what I say and post a link to an article by the St. Benedict Center with a curt “read this”. When I respond to that particular article by exposing its flaws, or demonstrating that it does not say what you allege, you revert back to your Fr. Feeney spin zone.

When that doesn’t work, you simply make allegations against me (my position) that are outright falsehoods.

It’s just a vicious circle and there is no pinning you down in order to have you actually respond to my arguments. I exposed a real problem with the St. Benedict Center response to Bishop Williamson with its seriously flawed rendition of Justification as defined by Trent. Do you have a response? No, you don’t - so don’t bother lecturing me on what Fr. Feeney believed, or on the fact that Bread of Life is not a scholarly theological work when I told columba the very same thing.

Jehanne wrote:Father Feeney, for the record, was agnostic about the fate of a catechumen who died without sacramental Baptism in Water. Of course, agnosticism is the only position that one could take in such a "circumstance," (which, of course, Father Feeney believed never occurred for a catechumen who had perfect charity and perfect contrition) because how could you possibly judge if someone truly had "perfect charity" and "perfect contrition" or not, especially, when we ourselves cannot possibly make such a judgment about our own spiritual state, let alone trying to make a similar judgment about another individual? Of course, only the One and Triune God could make such a judgment. Besides, it would also be impossible in such a circumstance to prove that someone was not, in fact, already sacramentally Baptized in Water.

No one has to “judge” if someone truly had "perfect charity" and "perfect contrition" or not, and what can make you say such things? You call this an argument? This is not about making judgments; it’s about the Church teaching that under certain conditions the fruits of the sacrament of Baptism may be realized through baptism of blood and baptism of desire. It’s also about the Church teaching that this state of Justification is salvific when a person perseveres (by grace) in this state of grace (normally associated with baptism of blood and baptism of desire at death).

The only “proof” relevant to this discussion is proof that the Church does in fact teach this doctrine.

As for Baptism of Desire being "deficient," we've been down this road. It is deficient, irregardless if it is salvific or not:

Look, save us your idle speculations and irrelevant arguments on the “deficiency” of baptism of desire, especially when you have failed to address the alleged “deficiency” of baptism of blood, which provides a greater influx of grace than sacramental baptism, as all theologians teach.

Your “irregardless if it is salvific or not” comment misses the whole point of where a state of sanctification “by the desire thereof” is sufficient for salvation, so you do not get to dismiss it with a flip of your arrogant thumb. As I have shown, the St. Benedict Center seems to be arguing that the translation to Justification by “the desire thereof” is a “deficient” form of Justification THAT CANNOT SAVE anyone in this particular state of grace because it is does NOT, apparently, make one an adopted son of God. And it is precisely that Justification as defined by Trent, since the promulgation of the Gospel, that makes us adopted sons (through an interior regeneration) and differentiates the Old Justification from the New. If Trent meant to define Justification “by the desire thereof” as the un-fulfilled justification of the Old Law, I think it would have; but it didn’t.

Duckbill’s “Bill Strom” theory has more credibility in this respect, even if it is fatally flawed, because it makes no pretense of arguing that one may be justified (just as Trent teaches) by the fruit of the sacrament prior to, an even without (by necessity), the sacrament.

So the Feeneyite argument that one may in fact be justified “by the desire thereof” is a deceptive one, for I do not see how it can be the same Justification as defined by Trent.

If you can’t respond to my specific arguments where I cited a specific article which is touted to be representative of the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center (Br. Michael, “A Reply to Verbum”), then don’t, but stop trying to change the subject and stop with your incessant and irrelevant spin, especially with respect to your take on what Fr. Feeney “really” believed.

Actually, never mind; that just encourages you. Spin away.

tornpage wrote:
Gentleman - and of course I do not direct this at MRyan -

Hmmm .... hey, I resemble that remark.

Hmmm .... hey, I resemble that remark.

At times, yes.

Maybe I should start a separate thread with my challenge to the Feeneyites on where the Church has said that one must be baptized in water to be saved.

" All the faithful must confess only one Baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament , celebrated in water, is necessary for children and grown-ups alike for the perfect remedy of salvation." Council of Vienne, Denzinger # 482

Rasha,

As to the "one baptism" thing, MRyan has already quoted St. Thomas on this - baptism of desire does not destroy the unity of the "one" baptism:

Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

As to the other part, I question the translation of the Council that is cited. My Denzinger says this:

482 Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as "one God and one faith" (Ep 4,5), which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.

The Latin is this:

903 482 (De effectu baptismi.)
Ad hoc baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes in Christo regenerans est, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica ab omnibus fideliter confitendum, quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter perfectum remedium ad salutem.

I don't see "necessary" anywhere in the Latin. We can, and should, have further discussion about the Latin here, particularly about that "commonly" part of the "perfect remedy," which sounds a lot to me like Leo XIII: “nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external [might I suggest, the "common" means?]: that is to say, the sacraments”

We must believe that baptism is the "perfect remedy" for the old stain of Adam for both adults and children. We know it gives a fuller remission, and I do in fact believe (while recognizing baptism of desire as salvific) it is the "perfect" remedy.

So, we should talk about this more - particularly the sense in the Latin (I suspect that translation of yours to be done by some Feeneyite, who inserted that "necessary," which even then sounds odd in what he gives us - necessary as the "perfect" remedy) - but right now I say, "nice try, but no."

All of this is irrelevant. I posted this before, but it went answered, and it will probably go unanswered again. The proof of the absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water is contained within the Canons of the Council of Trent:

1) Major Premise — The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

2) 1st Minor Premise — The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

3) 2nd Minor Premise — God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

Conclusion:

"There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

Likewise, another syllogism and proof:

1) Major Premise -- Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

2) Minor Premise -- True and natural water is necessary for Baptism.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 2, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

3) Conclusion -- True and natural water is necessary for salvation.

All of this is irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant to you: after all, we're only talking about what the Church teaches. That is no criterion for you, and certainly imposes no restraint on your free-willing faux syllogism making.

Who needs what the Church says? And once that goes, hey, we can dispense with proper syllogistic form and logic, too.

Your syllogism is absurd. Think of all the commands that God imposes on men - start with the 10 commandments. Since these commandments are not impossible for us to fulfill, and God is certainly capable of bringing about their fulfillment, the conclusion inevitably follows: those who will be justified or saved will not have violated any of these commandments, i.e., none of the elect will have committed adultery, lied, had impure thoughts, stolen . . .

Your absurd syllogizing is not necessary. We have an authoritative voice that interprets the ways (and laws) of God for man: the Church. It always come down to the same thing, and your rejection of that authority that keeps you spiraling into different abysses, this one being the abyss of absurd syllogizing.

tornpage wrote:Rasha,

As to the "one baptism" thing, MRyan has already quoted St. Thomas on this - baptism of desire does not destroy the unity of the "one" baptism:

Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

As to the other part, I question the translation of the Council that is cited. My Denzinger says this:

482 Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as "one God and one faith" (Ep 4,5), which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.

The Latin is this:

903 482 (De effectu baptismi.)
Ad hoc baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes in Christo regenerans est, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica ab omnibus fideliter confitendum, quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter perfectum remedium ad salutem.

I don't see "necessary" anywhere in the Latin. We can, and should, have further discussion about the Latin here, particularly about that "commonly" part of the "perfect remedy," which sounds a lot to me like Leo XIII: “nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external [might I suggest, the "common" means?]: that is to say, the sacraments”

We must believe that baptism is the "perfect remedy" for the old stain of Adam for both adults and children. We know it gives a fuller remission, and I do in fact believe (while recognizing baptism of desire as salvific) it is the "perfect" remedy.

So, we should talk about this more - particularly the sense in the Latin (I suspect that translation of yours to be done by some Feeneyite, who inserted that "necessary," which even then sounds odd in what he gives us - necessary as the "perfect" remedy) - but right now I say, "nice try, but no."

Where did you get the Latin? I search the Vatican website and the Web in general and couldn't find the Council of Vienna in Latin.

Here is the EWTN translation:

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/VIENNE.HTM

This translation seems closer to Rasha's than yours.

Could your Latin text have possibly been from Karl Rahner's Denzinger edition?

Are there "imperfect remedies"?

Rasha,

Are there "imperfect remedies"?

I guess that was supposed to be clever. The intention goes awry, because it's far from it.

May there be more than one remedy? Yes. To the extent that one remedy is more effective than another, might that remedy be described as "perfect" in comparison to the other remedies? Yes - if you're being honest about it, rather than being a Feeneyite with an agenda, that is.

Case in point: baptism, which not only justifies but wipes out the sentence and owed punishment, and entitles one who dies in the grace thereof, if they haven't sinned since baptism, to immediate entrance to heaven, and the lesser remedy (therefore clearly not "perfect") of baptism of desire, which can justify but not eliminate the penalty and necessary time in Purgatory. Too bad you can't ask those suffering in Purgatory whether baptism might honestly and accurately be described as "the perfect remedy," in distinction to some other remedy.

Interestingly enough, we have a good example of the "more than one remedy" situation in this very context from the Council of Florence:

Denzinger 712

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians.

Hmmm. What might those other remedies - less effective than the "perfect" remedy of baptism - be for adults?

I appreciate the attempt at wit - sort of.

Cowboy,

Here's where I got the Latin:

http://www.catho.org/9.php?d=bxx

Now, Rasha cites an apparently corrupt translation of the Council of Vienne. I cite a translation out of a genuine edition of Denzinger, give you the Latin, and you ask me where I got my translation? And you imply that if my Latin text was from Rahner's edition . . . what? You think Rahner actually would change the official Latin text? I don't get it. Actually, I think I do, but I won't mention it.

Why don't you ask Rasha what edition of Denzinger his translation comes from, you know, the one with water baptism being "necessary"?

As to the EWTN translation being closer to Rasha's "necessary" translation, I don't think so. Rasha maintains that water baptism is the only remedy and absolutely necessary for salvation. I hold that water baptism, since it provides a fuller remission by taking away not only the stain on the soul but the time in Purgatory to be served, is the perfect remedy, but leaves place for other remedies, such as baptism of desire. You square the translation below against our positions, and you find the translation comes closer to, and supports, Rasha's view:

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.

So this translation with its water baptism is "a perfect means of salvation" comes closer to Rasha's "water baptism is the necessary remedy for salvation" than my "water baptism is the perfect remedy for salvation among the other remedies"?

All I can say is (well, not all, but all I will say), in the face of all this Feeneyite intellectual honesty . . . go figure.

Here are another set of syllogisms proving the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in Water:

Syllogism 1

Major Premise: The One and Triune God is a Perfect Being; as such, He desires that which is Perfect for His Creation.

Minor Premise: Human beings are part of God's creation.

Conclusion : God desires that which is perfect for human beings.

Syllogism 2

Major Premise: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.

Minor Premise: Sacramental Baptism in Water is the "perfect remedy" for salvation.

Conclusion : God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

Syllogism 3

Major Premise: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; as such, He can bring about that which He desires, respecting, of course, human free will.

Minor Premise: God desires Sacramental Baptism for all human beings.

Conclusion : God can bring about Sacramental Baptism for all human beings, as long as we cooperate with God's grace.

As the “perfect remedy” for salvation, and as a divine precept instituted by our Lord, Baptism is necessary to all men for salvation (as a necessity of precept and means), and no one is exempt from the law of baptism (as divine and ecclesiastical precept), except those the law excuses when the sacrament is not available through no fault of their own. Baptism remains as a necessity of means for salvation; however, as an extrinsic necessity, it is absolutely necessary in re (in reality), or at least in voto (desire, with sanctifying grace being the “ultimate reality”, the res sacramenti of Baptism), with the gifts of faith and charity (which are at all times intrinsic to salvation) being able to effect a translation (regeneration) into Christ (by “the desire thereof”) who infuses the soul united to Him in faith and charity with an influx of sanctifying grace (and the virtues, merit and gifts contained therein), thus effecting the translation of this spiritually regenerated soul as His adopted son and heir to the kingdom.

The necessity of the sacraments "re aut voto -- in reality or at least in desire" is the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent.

Baptism of desire may not be a “perfect” remedy with respect to the abundance of heavenly gifts found only in the sacrament of Baptism; but, in the case of the converted faith-filled un-baptized martyr, for example, it is a “perfect charity" that vivifies his faith and desire; a charity “perfected” supernaturally by our Lord who cannot refuse such entreaties of “perfect love” and cannot withhold elevating this soul in supernatural grace and being joined with him in the supernatural bonds of faith, and especially charity.

To those who insist that God is obliged to provide the sacrament without fail because “nothing is impossible to God”, fail to consider that while God is certainly bound by His promises, He is not necessarily bound by His precepts (laws), especially when a contravention of those laws might serve better to manifest His goodness. The case of the “on-the-spot” conversion of the non-baptized martyr may be such an example of His goodness where the power of faith and charity, manifested in one’s willing suffering for Christ, is proven to be the most powerful of the bonds by which we are united to Christ and His One Body – the Church.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) teaches that “perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism”:

No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation … A Sacrament, he [St. Augustine] says, is a sign of a sacred thing; or, as it has been expressed in other words of the same import: A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification.

If, then, pastors explain these truths accurately, there can be no doubt that the faithful will recognise the high dignity of this Sacrament and venerate it with the most profound piety, particularly when they reflect that each of them receives in Baptism by the interior operation of the Holy Ghost the same glorious and most ample gifts which were so strikingly manifested by miracles at the Baptism of Christ the Lord.

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If converted to the Lord God, they [adults] are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism.

Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.

They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Columba has stated that the thrice defined dogmatic declarations on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus “provide the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained”, while also saying that the clear words of the ex cathedra declarations “implicitly” excludes from salvation the non-baptized martyr and catechumen, as well as those who may be ignorant of the Church but, under certain conditions, as the Church teaches, “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him”.

I am waiting for the resident “Feeneyites” to respond to whether they are bound to this authentic and infallible teaching of the Church:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:

8. … For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

21 … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Columba could only respond by saying that he follows the explanation of Fr. Feeney, whatever that might be.

To a devoted Feeneyite, I guess that comes as no surprise; but I’m not sure that the opinions of Fr. Feeney qualify as “the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

I get the distinct impression that Feeneyites are suggesting that the Roman Catechism of Trent, the codes of Canon Law (1917 and 1983), the Papal Allocution of Pius XII, VCII’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, as well as the Council’s decree Ad Gentes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not represent “the Teaching Authority of the Church”, but are simply the “fallible” and "erroneous opinions" of popes and theologians; "opinions" that are opposed to the Church’s own dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that allegedly “defined” that no one at all can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, not the faith and charity filled catechumen, not the converted Martyr (no matter his faith, charity and desire); NO ONE at all can be saved without water baptism!

And THAT is the “as it is written” and “once declared” meaning of the words, even if the Church teaches quite unequivocally that she does NOT understand the dogma in that rigorous manner, a dogma she alone can “interpret” with the divine assistance that was not given to the Feeneyites, or to anyone else who tries to impose their “private interpretation” on the gullible.

Unfortunately, Feeneyites also suggest that the authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the Church is not always the “guarantor” of the true faith and is not always “the living authority” established by God to “teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation”, while “providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it” (Pope Pius IX, QUI PLURIBUS)

But they are very good at pitting "magisteriums" and popes against the other in the old "hierarchy of truths" game, which is code for the private interpretation of a "once declared" dogmatic declaration being superior to the living, authentic, and permanent "Teaching Authority of the Church".

MRyan wrote:But they are very good at pitting "magisteriums" and popes against the other in the old "hierarchy of truths" game, which is code for the private interpretation of a "once declared" dogmatic declaration being superior to the living, authentic, and permanent "Teaching Authority of the Church".

Continuing with this line of thought, Feeneyites like columba argue that the “fallible” Magisterium may in fact teach an erroneous doctrine that stands in open opposition to the Church's own salvation dogmas -- for centuries on end.

Here is the perfect example of this, as argued by columba:

And may I add that any new enlightenment derived from a previously defined truth of the faith must necessarily be derived organically as following on from the previous and not standing in opposition to it.

For example: How can, "In certain cases water is not necessary to achieve the fruits of Baptism." follow on organically from the following dogmatic statement?

(Council of Trent, Session VII, "Canons on Baptism", Can. 2) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

One contradicts the other therefore, one is correct and the other incorrect. Which one should we accept as correct?

Notice the flawed assumption (almost as flawed as Jehanne’s defective syllogisms “proving” the absolute necessity of water baptsm; but prove only that anyone can make up a syllogism to “prove” anything) that there is a contradiction, and notice the implication that the Church not only does not understand her own dogmatic canons, she teaches a doctrine opposed to the same.

Does columba turn to the authentic, living and permanent teaching authority of the Church in order to reconcile this apparent “contradiction” that exists only in his own fallible mind?

No; and never did it occur to columba that it might be his own warped interpretation that is in error, and not the Church’s doctrine. Remember, to columba, no interpretation given by the Church can be opposed to that meaning as it was “once declared” and understood by the Church (meaning, as understood by columba, “implications” and all); never mind how the Church actually understands it and presents it to the Faithful. Apparently, unless the Church “dogmatically defines” that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are authentic teachings of the Church, it doesn’t matter what magisterial instrument she uses to teach the same truth over and over again – the Church is in ERROR, and in stated opposition to her own dogmas.

Sure.

Until the veil if ignorance is lifted, never will columba understand that Canon 2 was written specifically to condemn the heretical Protestant doctrine that posits that natural water is not absolutely necessary (Luther taught that beer or milk could be used to confer the sacrament), and to condemn the heresy that the sacraments do not operate “ex opere operato”, but only by a Baptism of the Spirit (Calvin taught that “water” in John 3:5 was only a “metaphor” for the Holy Ghost); thus rendering the necessity of natural water superfluous to the efficacy of the sacrament.

Perhaps if columba had read some of the post-Tridentine theologians, and such works as the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique about theses specific heresies, he would begin to understand that neither Canon 2 nor Canon 5 (condemning anyone who says Baptism is “optional” or “free”) have anything to do with baptism of blood or baptism of desire since neither of these is a sacrament, neither denies that natural water is absolutely necessary for the efficacy of the sacrament, neither suggests that water is “superfluous” to the sacrament, neither suggests that the sacraments do not work “ex opere operato”, and neither distorts our Lord’s words in John 3:5 into some type of metaphor (because “real and natural water is not necessary for baptism”.

None of this will register to those who abide by the Protestant doctrine of "private interpretation". Why? Because columba apparently believes the following syllogisms:

- The sacrament of baptism is necessary to all men for salvation (True, but not how columba understands it)
- Neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire is a sacrament (True)
- Therefore, neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire can save (False)

- Natural water is absolutely necessary for the validity and efficacy of the sacrament of Baptism (True)
- Neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire require natural water (True)
- Therefore, neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire can be efficacious (False)

- “If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.” (True)
- With baptism of blood and baptism of desire, the sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation (True; properly understood, but the obligation to receive baptism is NOT “optional”)
- Therefore, baptism of desire and baptism of blood render the sacrament of Baptism “optional”, that is, not necessary for salvation (False)

The logical fallacy is alive and well in the syllogisms of Jehanne and columba.

tornpage wrote:Cowboy,

Here's where I got the Latin:

http://www.catho.org/9.php?d=bxx

Now, Rasha cites an apparently corrupt translation of the Council of Vienne. I cite a translation out of a genuine edition of Denzinger, give you the Latin, and you ask me where I got my translation? And you imply that if my Latin text was from Rahner's edition . . . what? You think Rahner actually would change the official Latin text? I don't get it. Actually, I think I do, but I won't mention it.

Why don't you ask Rasha what edition of Denzinger his translation comes from, you know, the one with water baptism being "necessary"?

As to the EWTN translation being closer to Rasha's "necessary" translation, I don't think so. Rasha maintains that water baptism is the only remedy and absolutely necessary for salvation. I hold that water baptism, since it provides a fuller remission by taking away not only the stain on the soul but the time in Purgatory to be served, is the perfect remedy, but leaves place for other remedies, such as baptism of desire. You square the translation below against our positions, and you find the translation comes closer to, and supports, Rasha's view:

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.

So this translation with its water baptism is "a perfect means of salvation" comes closer to Rasha's "water baptism is the necessary remedy for salvation" than my "water baptism is the perfect remedy for salvation among the other remedies"?

All I can say is (well, not all, but all I will say), in the face of all this Feeneyite intellectual honesty . . . go figure.

Ok thanks for the link.
Dude why is everything weird around this topic!
The Denzinger in English has the # as #482 but the Latin link you gave has it as #903 then next to that #482. Why? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I mean, dude, why doesn't the Vatican have the official Latin of all councils etc...on their site? Up until last year they only had Latin texts from John XXIII to JPII. Now I noticed they have added more going to Leo XIII, which is good. But I mean the Internet has been around since about 1998 and they still have a louzy website. What's up with that?

this is at the top of the French version:

"Symboles et définitions de la foi catholique, Enchiridion Symbolorum, ou Denzinger. Symbols and definitions of the Catholic faith, Enchiridion Symbolorum or Denzinger. Edition 37. Edition 37. Ce
document ne comporte que les numéros 1 à 3930, soit jusqu'à la réponse
de Jean XXIII à propos de l'élection de députés qui soutiennent le
communisme

This document does not contain the numbers 1 to 3930,
until the response of John XXIII on the election of deputies who support communism."

What does THAT mean?

Cowboy,

Yes, it can be terribly frustrating because the Vatican will reference the official Latin edition of Denzinger, while the English translation (my hard copy is edition 30) does not match-up with the Latin edition's citation numbers.

One would think that there would be one standard edition, regardless of the translation ... but such is not the case. Perhaps its because the Vatican does not control Denzinger, or its translations; though I am sure they could exert some influence if they wanted to since they do in fact use it as a reference when citing their own official documents.

Btw, the English translation of Denzinger (edition 30) goes from 1-5006.

RashaLampa wrote:Are there "imperfect remedies"?

If one may be justified by a "perfect charity", is justification by "the desire thereof" "imperfect" with respect to the essential fruit of the sacrament, or only with respect to the other gifts inherent in the sacrament that make up for the lack of "perfection" in the recipient?

Is Baptism the "perfect remedy" because of man's fallen imperfect nature? And does that imperfection render sanctifying grace and its translation to justice in the bonds of faith and charity any less "perfect"?

Why is martyrdom considered by ALL theologians even more "perfect" than water baptism with respect to charity and sanctifying grace; with the virtue of charity being the supernatural gift that vivifies one's faith and desire, and that which binds one to our Lord, and by necessary extension, to His Body?

MRyan wrote:
Columba has stated that the thrice defined dogmatic declarations on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus “provide the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained”, while also saying that the clear words of the ex cathedra declarations “implicitly” excludes from salvation the non-baptized martyr and catechumen, as well as those who may be ignorant of the Church but, under certain conditions, as the Church teaches, “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him”.

Yes... I am saying that the clear words of the ex cathedra declaration “implicitly” excludes from salvation the non-baptized martyr and catechumen, as well as those who may be ignorant of the Church.
God indeed can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him but, because He "can" doesn't mean "does."

I am waiting for the resident “Feeneyites” to respond to whether they are bound to this authentic and infallible teaching of the Church:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:

8. … For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

21 … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

I for one include myself as bound by the above infallible teaching. The Teaching Authority of the Church makes known in a unique way what is conained in the deposit of faith by her dogmatic declarations and Yes, she does override the opinions and inteprtations of theoogians (in many cases) when making such declarations.

I'm not quite sure why you used that quote to support your own position.

Columba could only respond by saying that he follows the explanation of Fr. Feeney, whatever that might be.

To a devoted Feeneyite, I guess that comes as no surprise; but I’m not sure that the opinions of Fr. Feeney qualify as “the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

I agree. Fr Feeney is not the teaching authority of the Church but he has derived his beliefs from the infallible declarations of the Teaching Authority of the Church.

I get the distinct impression that Feeneyites are suggesting that the Roman Catechism of Trent, the codes of Canon Law (1917 and 1983), the Papal Allocution of Pius XII, VCII’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, as well as the Council’s decree Ad Gentes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not represent “the Teaching Authority of the Church”, but are simply the “fallible” and "erroneous opinions" of popes and theologians; "opinions" that are opposed to the Church’s own dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that allegedly “defined” that no one at all can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, not the faith and charity filled catechumen, not the converted Martyr (no matter his faith, charity and desire); NO ONE at all can be saved without water baptism!

The impression you get is the wrong impression.
You believe that the Trent Catechism, the codes of Cannon Law, Ad Gentes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are binding every Catholic to believe that baptism of desire/Blood and Invincible Ignorance are doctrines of the faith.
All that's being asked of the faithful is to believe that if God so willed He could provide
remedies for those who fall into those categories, and if He does so do, these will be known only to Him. In the meantime the Church knows no other remedy than water Baptism by which a man can be saved. That's what I believe and that's what Fr Feeney believed. God hasn't revealed to us whether or not He operates outside that which He has revealed. If He did, then they would no longer be known only to Him.

And THAT is the “as it is written” and “once declared” meaning of the words, even if the Church teaches quite unequivocally that she does NOT understand the dogma in that rigorous manner, a dogma she alone can “interpret” with the divine assistance that was not given to the Feeneyites, or to anyone else who tries to impose their “private interpretation” on the gullible.

Where does the Church teach quite unequivocally that she does NOT understand the dogma in that rigorous manner?
She certainly has defined her dogma in a rigoristic manner.
Does she understand all her other dogmas in a non-rigoristic manner?

Unfortunately, Feeneyites also suggest that the authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the Church is not always the “guarantor” of the true faith and is not always “the living authority” established by God to “teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation”, while “providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it” (Pope Pius IX, QUI PLURIBUS)

No they don't.. They merely disagree with your interpretation of ordinary Magesterial Teachings and the weight you attribute to the speculative aspects of the same.

But they are very good at pitting "magisteriums" and popes against the other in the old "hierarchy of truths" game, which is code for the private interpretation of a "once declared" dogmatic declaration being superior to the living, authentic, and permanent "Teaching Authority of the Church".

The dogmatic declarations "are" in accord with the teaching authority of the Church. In fact it "was" the very same teaching authority who gave us them.

MRyan, you are trying to find heresy where there is none and if any of us are heretics then it's high time the Church corrected us by a definitive declaration on baptism of desire/Blood and Invicable Ignorance. You Know, Like the one on the necessity of water Baptism.

I think Columba makes a good point. Does the Church know of another means to salvation outside of water baptism?

"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm

So aren't baptism of desire and baptism of blood other means?

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

LOL of course not, God doesn't need to be saved! LOL

Seriously though, I see no footnote to where this 'dogmatic" statement is stated, where is it from?

I was checking the Vatican website and the link to the Catechism about "no salvation outside the Church'' is dead.
Here is what you get:

http://www.vatican.va/

But Google "cached" has this: www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm+no+salvation+outside+the+Church&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=ISO-8859-1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">link here
This is what it used to be.

When I searched, "No salvation outside the Church" on the the St Charles Borromeo website all I got was this :link here

Plus why does JPII call Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus an "axiom" and not a dogma?link here CCC calls No Salvation Outside the Church an "affirmation" and and not a dogma?
Lets try it rewording the way they talk about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with something that is more clear the "Eucharist":

'The axiom " this is my body this is my blood"-- as often stated by Church Fathers. It was included in many councils. The axiom
means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the words said by a priest over bread during mass as necessary by Jesus Christ, there is
an obligation to believe that the bread becomes His Body and Blood. For those, however, who have communities that are not validly ordained priests, such as Lutheran Ministers, the Eucharist is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is
granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without
external transubstantiation, but nonetheless always in relation to the Eucharist (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for
those who receive these forms of "Eucharist", because they do not know the Church and
sometimes even outwardly reject the possibility of bread becoming His Body. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving
mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Eucharist the Savior founded.'

I mean it sounds like someone who doesn't want to admit that Lutherans don't have the ability to have the Eucharist from their ministers. Why? Why all this confusion?

Plus MRyan while it would be nice to have an "official" Denzinger. My problem is that they don't have an official Denzinger but they don't even have all the Councils in their original language and Encyclicals on their site or a reasonable maneuverable site. This isn't a big job. To have all the documents of the Holy Office would be a big job but most councils are only a few pages, except Vat.II, which is longer than all the other councils combined! It just seems like there is a lot of confusion on this topic and it isn't as clear as you seem to think.

Columba wrote: "Yes... I am saying that the clear words of the ex cathedra declaration “implicitly” excludes from salvation the non-baptized martyr and catechumen, as well as those who may be ignorant of the Church."

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:I am waiting for the resident “Feeneyites” to respond to whether they are bound to this authentic and infallible teaching of the Church:
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:

8. … For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

21 … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

I for one include myself as bound by the above infallible teaching. The Teaching Authority of the Church makes known in a unique way what is contained in the deposit of faith by her dogmatic declarations and Yes, she does override the opinions and inteprtations of theoogians (in many cases) when making such declarations.

I'm not quite sure why you used that quote to support your own position.

Fr Feeney is not the teaching authority of the Church but he has derived his beliefs from the infallible declarations of the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Where does the Church teach quite unequivocally that she does NOT understand the dogma in that rigorous manner?

Feeneyite translation: The Teaching Authority of the Church makes known in a unique way what is contained in the deposit of faith by her dogmatic declarations; the meaning of which is already "explicitly" contained in the dogmatic declaration ("defined" or not). This means that what is not explicitly contained in the declaration is implicitly excluded; thus, the dogmatic declarations override the "opinions and interpretations of theologians”, even if those "opinions and interpretations" are universal and also happen to represent the explicit, authentic and ordinary teachings of the Magisterium over the course of many centuries, and are even encoded into Ecclesiastical Law.

In other words, according to columba, the Church's authentic and ordinary teachings on the catechumen, for example, with respect to baptism of desire and his juridical status within the Church, since it explicitly teaches that the catechumen, under certain conditions, may be saved without water Baptism, is not an "authentic" teaching. And, coming from the “fallible ordinary magisterium”, this "teaching" is in error and cannot actually represent the "Teaching Authority of the Church" because it is opposed to that particular "Teaching Authority of the Church" that already dogmatically "defined" (at least "implicitly") that the non-Baptized catechumen is excluded from salvation.

For example, Canons 2 and 5 from the Council of Trent implicitly exclude from salvation the non-baptized catechumen because they explicitly defined that natural water is necessary for the sacrament, that the sacrament is not optional or free; and that the words of our Lord in John 3:5 cannot be turned into a metaphor for water baptism. Columba's response to my post on this subject should be most revealing.

Of course, according to columba, no interpretation of these sacred Canons is necessary - the meaning is clear "as it is written"; baptism of blood and baptism of desire are formally condemned by the Church because they are in direct opposition to the infallible ex cathedra Canons of Trent.

But if that is true, why doesn't the anathema apply to everyone who believes these teachings, to include the popes who teach through the "fallible" ordinary Magisterium that the Church has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire supply for the lack of water Baptism?

But if what columba says is just his fallible "opinion", where does that leave the proper interpretation of the Canons of Trent and the other dogmatic declarations that allegedly "implicitly" condemn baptism of blood and baptism of desire?

Do we have a living, authoritative and permanent magisterium to answer such questions, or not? Columba seems to be saying yes, we do, and it already rendered its answer by way of the dogmatic declaration - the interpretation of which needs no interpretation, even if columba's interpretation of the "once declared" dogma "as it is written" might be wrong! But how can it be wrong if it is so manifestly and infallibly clear that it positively excludes in all cases the non-Baptized catechumen from salvation - when the Church explicitly teaches that it does not?

Can anyone follow this?

Here is a sampling of the "non-authortiative, "non-authentic" and , “erroneous opinions” of the "fallible ordinary Magisterium" that have been condemned, according to columba, by the Council of Trent:

VCII: Lumen Gentium: Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

VVII, Ad Gentes: Finally, the juridic status of catechumens should be clearly defined in the new code of Canon law. For since they are joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ,(7) and not seldom they are already leading a life of faith, hope, and charity.

Canons Pertaining to Christian Initiation from the [New] Code of Canon Law (Translations are from: Code of Canon Law: Latin – English Edition, Washington, DC: The Canon Law Society of America, 1983):

206 1. Catechumens are in union with the Church in a special manner, that is, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they ask to be incorporated into the Church by explicit choice and are therefore united with the Church by that choice just as by a life of faith, hope and charity which they lead; the Church already cherishes them as its own.

1183 1. As regards funeral rites catechumens are to be considered members of the Christian faithful.

CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial:

1917 CODE, Canon 1239.2: “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”

Commentary on the Code: “The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire.” (The Sacred Canons, by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.)

1983 Code, Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.

Canon Law and the authentic teaching of the Church on baptism of desire:

1917 Code of Canon Law: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)

1983 Code of Canon Law: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.” (Can. 849)

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951: “Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

The Catechism of The Catholic Church:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Columba, you can't have it both ways.

Go ahead, tell us once again that the above teachings are not from the authentic and ordinary Magisteium ("The Teaching Authority of the Church") and that Catholics are not bound to submission of the mind and will to the authority of the teaching Church because these "opinions" are in opposition to the true "Teaching Authority of the Church".

Then you can explain why all of the popes who believed in and taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire, to include Innocent III (who also defined that outside of the Catholic Church nobody at all is saved), are not condemned by the Canons of Trent for teaching heresy.

cowboy wrote:"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

LOL of course not, God doesn't need to be saved! LOL

Seriously though, I see no footnote to where this 'dogmatic" statement is stated, where is it from?

You go first; please show us the “dogmatic” statement that says that God is bound by His own laws to provide the sacrament to each and every one of His elect.

Good luck with that.

The “statement”, btw, comes from St. Cyprian, from St. Augustine, from St. Aquinas, from St. Bonaventure, from St. Bernard, from St. Bellarmine; it comes from all of the Scholastic theologians, and it comes from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Never mind, it has not been “defined”, so you are free to “reject” it since you know better than the Church.

I get it.

And now you complain because there is no on-line source that gives you the decrees of every single Encyclical and Council of the Church in its “original” language -- as if, beyond making comparisons between the various texts, you would know what to do with the official Latin texts.

OK, perhaps that would be “nice”; but is that what we need, more non-Latinists “interpreting” the Church’s official documents and telling us what they “really” mean, like the idiot savants who have the audacity to tell us that Trent Session 6, Ch. 4, and Session 7, Canon 4 (On the Sacraments in General), are not to be understood as the Church and all of her saints and theologians (you know, those actually fluent in the language of the Church) have always understood it?

There is a reason why the Church used to restrict access to Holy Scripture, and preferred to leave its authentic interpretations to the Church – its called “private interpretation”.

And now we understand why.

I’ll say it again, God is certainly bound by His promises, but He is not necessarily bound by His laws, when a contravention of those laws might serve better to manifest His goodness.

Of course, never mind what the Church teaches if it is not "dogmatic". Got it.