Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

MRyan Sun May 29, 2011 4:20 pm

Very good, Tornpage, but the gaping hole in the argument is this:

With the examples of 1) the more common theological opinion that holds that a Pope who becomes an obstinate heretic (rejects and loses the Catholic Faith) loses the Petrine office, and 2) the minority view that posits that a pertinacious heretical Pope can remain in office with full Primacy over the universal Church, there are no explicit “magisterial expressions” that teach either opinion (leaving the “never-failing-faith” of Peter aside), and there is no universal moral consensus of theologians for either view, though the former (St. Bellarmine's) is clearly the majority opinion.

In other words, if a universal moral consensus of saints and theologians did not exist for baptism of blood/baptism of desire (since at least the Council of Trent); and, more importantly, if there were no authentic “magisterial expressions” for these same teachings (for which there are many), then the analogy might hold.

As it is, the analogy misses the mark. Again, to Jehanne's point, whether baptism of blood or baptism of desire ever happens does not define if the doctrine is true or not; the issue is: If the Church teaches the doctrine and tells us that she has always held this doctrine with firm conviction, we should take her at her word; not only because she says the doctrine is true, and has done so consistently, but because the universal moral consensus (since at least the Council of Trent) confirms this same truth.

Jehanne Sun May 29, 2011 4:30 pm

Why did Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's book receive an Imprimi?

MRyan Sun May 29, 2011 4:56 pm

Jehanne wrote:
It is interesting to note that the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's book They Fought the Good Fight received an Imprimi potest and also approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

And why is that so "interesting"?

You must know that Brother Thomas Mary Sennott brings this up because Fr. Laisney made the rash accusation that Feeneyites could be labeled as "heretics" because they deny (what he considers) the universal and ordinary (infallible) teaching of baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

In other words, if there was anything overtly "heretical" in They Fought the Good Fight, Br. Sennott would never have received an Imprimi potest to his manuscript (which itself is a fallible ecclesiastical opinion that there is nothing contrary to the Faith within).

But I don't know where you get the idea that "They Fought the Good Fight received ... approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", when nowhere does Br. Sennott say this:

Also my book They Fought the Good Fight (1987) ... which included Father Feeney's speculations on baptism of desire and baptism of blood, received the Imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy J. Harrington of Worcester, and the retired bishop of Worcester, Bernard J. Flanagan, acted as acted as Censor deputatus.".

Perhaps I missed it, but where is the specific "approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"?

Is the CDF now in the business of reading and approving the books of lay religious Third Order members that defend Fr. Feeney? I hardly think that they have the time for such things, unless the governing Bishop or his "Censor deputatus" forwarded the book for a reason.

Jehanne Sun May 29, 2011 5:32 pm

I should also mention that when the Sisters of St. Anne were trying to get their status "regularized," they were asked through Bishop Harrington by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to "understand" the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston." My They Fought the Good Fight was still in manuscript at the time, but it had been read approvingly by both the bishop and the sisters. I suggested they use the following "understanding" of the "Letter" in my book:

"A reference to the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston" appears in an official footnote to Lumen Gentium (2,16)...The relevant passage of Lumen Gentium reads:

"'Those also can attain to everlasting life 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.'

"This passage of Lumen Gentium is similar to the "Letter" but with one significant difference. The phrase 'implicit desire' (votum implicitum) which was so objectionable to Father Feeney has been dropped...The relevant passage from Lumen Gentium continues:

"'...Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel (my emphasis TMS). She rewards such qualities as given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.'

"So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is. Whatever truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a "preparation for the Gospel," and Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church 'to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men (emphasis mine), and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk.16:16), ...painstakingly fosters her missionary work.'"(5)

This "understanding" was accepted by both Bishop Harrington and the Sisters, and on his next ad liminal visit to Rome the Bishop presented it to the Congregation. It was accepted, and the status of the Sisters was "regularized."

MRyan Sun May 29, 2011 5:47 pm

What was presented to the Congregation was NOT the manuscript, "They Fought the Good Fight" but that "understanding" of the Holy Office "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston" required by the Sisters of St. Anne who "were trying to get their status "regularized".

As Br. Sennott said, "They Fought the Good Fight was still in manuscript at the time, but it had been read approvingly by both the bishop and the sisters. I suggested they use the following 'understanding' of the 'Letter' in my book: ..."

And of course that "understanding" is in accord with an orthodox understanding of Lumen Gentium.

"They Fought the Good Fight" was never approved by the Holy Office; only that section used by the Sisters for regularization was "approved", and is perfectly orthodox.

Jehanne Sun May 29, 2011 5:53 pm

The book received an Imprimi potest, which was never overturned and/or censored by the Holy Office.

MRyan Sun May 29, 2011 6:02 pm

Jehanne wrote:The book received an Imprimi potest, which was never overturned and/or censored by the Holy Office.

Should it have been? Did someone bring it to the attention of the CDF? You mean it is heretical?

Tell me Jehanne, has the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office's Letter to the Bishop of Boston (approved by Pope Pius XII, and referenced in Lumne Gentium), ever been "overturned and/or censored"?

I mean, you did say that the Letter contained explicit heresy, did you not?

Jehanne Sun May 29, 2011 6:32 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:The book received an Imprimi potest, which was never overturned and/or censored by the Holy Office.
Should it have been? Did someone bring it to the attention of the CDF? You mean it is heretical?

Tell me Jehanne, has the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office's Letter to the Bishop of Boston (approved by Pope Pius XII, and referenced in Lumne Gentium), ever been "overturned and/or censored"?

I mean, you did say that the Letter contained explicit heresy, did you not?

I think that the Letter contradicts the fundamental notion of human free will, which is why I believe that it is both heretical and absurd. That is my "understanding" of it. And yes, I think that Vatican II overturned (if only "implicitly") the Letter.

MRyan Sun May 29, 2011 7:35 pm

Jehanne wrote:
I think that the Letter [of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office; approved by Pope Pius XII] contradicts the fundamental notion of human free will, which is why I believe that it is both heretical and absurd. That is my "understanding" of it. And yes, I think that Vatican II overturned (if only "implicitly") the Letter.

Sure, VCII, while referencing the entire Letter in Lumen Gentium, "implicitly" overturned the Holy Office Letter's teaching on "implicit desire", because the latter is not specifically mentioned in LG. That's a nice theory, but if VCII "rejected" the teaching, even "implicitly", the Church would not have taught it explicitly elsewhere. In fact, if you read LG with care, it "implicitly" makes reference to "implicit desire", repeatedly.

As to the Letter being "both heretical and absurd"; yep, that's what you said.

Did you know that "that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God" (see the "Letter") is a direct reference to an act of the will in freely accepting the graces of God so that it may freely wish to consent (and conform the will) to the will of God in all things, to include the desire to enter the Church and for Baptism?

Without the consent and the proper intentions of the will (and without supernatural Faith and charity, as the Letter also teaches), there can be no unity with the Church by desire and longing (whether explicit or implicit). It is "absurd" to say that the Holy Office taught otherwise.

I'm not even going to comment further ... but just let "the Letter [of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office] ... is both heretical and absurd" just kind of sit there for awhile.

For now.

Jehanne Sun May 29, 2011 7:51 pm

And, that's fine. You do not need to comment further, but I will. Once again, the following was accepted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the same Holy Office who issued the Letter a generation or so earlier:

I should also mention that when the Sisters of St. Anne were trying to get their status "regularized," they were asked through Bishop Harrington by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to "understand" the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston." My They Fought the Good Fight was still in manuscript at the time, but it had been read approvingly by both the bishop and the sisters. I suggested they use the following "understanding" of the "Letter" in my book:

"A reference to the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston" appears in an official footnote to Lumen Gentium (2,16)...The relevant passage of Lumen Gentium reads:

"'Those also can attain to everlasting life 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.'

"This passage of Lumen Gentium is similar to the "Letter" but with one significant difference. The phrase 'implicit desire' (votum implicitum) which was so objectionable to Father Feeney has been dropped...The relevant passage from Lumen Gentium continues:

"'...Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel (my emphasis TMS). She rewards such qualities as given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.'

"So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is. Whatever truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a "preparation for the Gospel," and Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church 'to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men (emphasis mine), and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk.16:16), ...painstakingly fosters her missionary work.'"(5)

If that is what the Letter was trying to say, then, yes, I agree with it wholeheartedly. Of course, I have discussed implicit faith on my blog, so I do not see the need to repeat myself here, but let's consider an example.

Tom & Robert are friends. Tom is a devout "cradle Catholic" and Robert is a devout Muslim, who "wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God" and who has "perfect charity." According to the Letter, it is possible to consider Robert to be an "anonymous Christian," (and, even an "anonymous Catholic") even though he explicitly denies the Divinity & Bodily Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Primacy of the Pope, which Tom affirms. Let's say that Tom, after hearing Robert talk about his Muslim faith, decides to convert to Islam. Is Tom an apostate? If not, pray tell, what is an apostate?

So, Tom converts, and he and Robert start attending Muslim worship services together. By the logic of the Letter, Tom is an apostate, but Robert is an "anonymous Christian," even though both men profess and believe the exact same thing. Pray tell, how can Robert ever become an apostate?

pascendi Sun May 29, 2011 9:39 pm

MRyan wrote:
Let’s see you produce the “Great mass of weight” and the “magisterial expression and stuff” that proves that your opinion is the more “accepted view’.

Absolutely. Which opinion do you mean?

pascendi Sun May 29, 2011 10:08 pm

tornpage wrote:What a mass of confusion! Let me try this again (as if it will make a difference). Rasha, forget the emoticons . . . you need to enable us to post in crayon.

Put the crayons away unless we plan to do something more fun, and probably also more productive. I understood your point precisely and have thought of that same likeness between positions many times before, even the exact one you draw out. It has always been clear that when someone claims that a thing is possible but has never happened places them, as far as results are concerned, in league with those who claim something cannot happen and therefore never has, yet the principles used to arrive at roughly the same resting place may wildly differ.

Your point was straight forward and understood. What confusion? Maybe you should re-read my post which directly answers it. I just read it again tonight, just now. It is fine.

pascendi Sun May 29, 2011 10:20 pm

In fact, here:

"And likewise we also have absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision, nor any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith itself."

I said it right there, directly answering your initial thoughts, in red. Hence my launching into a complaint about people not truly honoring the massive gulf between the Catholic Faith itself and what are products of the human mind (not to denigrate the latter). The number of parties I know who do this either a little or a lot ranges from everyone I know to just about, well, everyone I know.

You have in your hand, tornpage, a seriously honest likeness between one kind of unknown or speculation or whatnot, and another. So now what?

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 7:45 am

Pasc,

I understood your point precisely and have thought of that same likeness between positions many times before, even the exact one you draw out.

Well then it's my bad. But I was responding to this in your post:

It is absolutely, entirely IMPOSSIBLE for you, Myran, or you Tornpage, to get ANY ONE of these people here to admit that someone can attain the Beatific Vision without the sacrament of Baptism, and yet it appears thay you pretend that they are obligated to agree with you in the name of the Catholic Faith itself. And that they are deficient, stupid, crazy, dishonest, if they don't.

Nowhere in the post you responded to was I trying to get Jehanne to admit anything.

Now a point of clarification, which is a vital point that both MRyan and I have hit upon: the Church does teach that a person can go to heaven without the sacrament of baptism, but with just the desire for the same.

Some, even here, refuse to accept that. Which is ok, I guess, but to be consistent you have to be a sede, and hold that the Church, which cannot teach error on such points involving faith and morals, has taught error since the Trent, and therefore is not the true Church any longer.

I think we must believe it can or could happen (it is the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium), but may believe that it doesn't in fact. Almost all of us here, even MRyan and I, believe that all of the elect will receive water baptism before entering heaven. In fact, you might recall JAT and I having extensive discussions about "acceptable" positions for Feeneyites to hold, and resolving that issue by precisely this understanding. I have waffled on this understanding, but it is my position.

This is where the analogy with the speculation on a heretic pope helps me - my mind moves by ways of analogies, which I find extremely helpful, actually more than just helpful, in clarifying things. My thought on this issue mirrors St. Robert's thought on a heretic pope. I find this very helpful to fortifying my view, a view, you're right, one my logically come to and hold (indeed, many of us have) without the analogy, but which the analogy firms up for me. And it's extremely helpful because it mirrors the approach that anti-Feeneyites take on the issue of a heretic pope.

Where do I go now? I am fortified in my position, and no longer am wavering.

Jehanne Mon May 30, 2011 7:52 am

tornpage wrote:go to heaven without the sacrament of baptism, but with just the desire for the same.

No, the Church does not teach that; the Church teaches that only if the Sacrament of Baptism is impossible for a person to receive can his/her vow suffice. That is what Trent taught.

Just as a Pope loses his office if he becomes a heretic, so, too, if a person who has the "intention and determination" to receive Baptism but cannot do so, the Holy Spirit, if He can prevent the former can certainly prevent the latter. That's the argument here.

Since we are not obligated to believe that sedevacantism is ever a possibility, neither are we obligated to believe that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, in the complete absence of Sacrament Baptism in Water, is a possibility, either.

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 7:56 am

Mike,

there are no explicit “magisterial expressions” that teach either opinion (leaving the “never-failing-faith” of Peter aside), and there is no universal moral consensus of theologians for either view, though the former (St. Bellarmine's) is clearly the majority opinion.

I understand your distinction, which is why I sort of mid-stream put the emphasis of STl Robert's opinion, which is perfectly analogous. If there were magisterial statements settling the issue and adopting the "common" position, then the analogy would be perfect. But is still serves as showing the same structure between my thinking on baptism of desire and an accepted theological thinking on another topic, even if only St. Robert and some others hold exactly to that theological opinion on the other topic.

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 9:20 am

Jehanne,

I'm going to repeat your mantra: we've been through this a thousand times. You can stick your head in the sand, become enamored of your contradictions, whatever, but the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium does teach that one can go to heaven without baptism under certain conditions (in other words, simply, one "can"):

The Roman Catechism

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.

MRyan has laid this out for you repeatedly.

I'm not further revisiting this with you or anyone else - it's pointless. Believe the Church doesn't teach it, whatever. I'm not pronouncing judgment on you, but merely acknowledging fact and the truth that the Church does teach it, the consequences of someone's rejection of that teaching being another matter. But the teaching is clearly there.

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 9:27 am

Just as a Pope loses his office if he becomes a heretic, so, too, if a person who has the "intention and determination" to receive Baptism but cannot do so, the Holy Spirit, if He can prevent the former can certainly prevent the latter. That's the argument here.

No, that's not the argument here. The hairs of our head are numbered, and God controls the times and location of the lives of all men, and I believe places his elect where they either can hear the Gospel and receive baptism or sometimes provides miraculous means of getting the necessary faith and/or baptism to them.

The argument is about whether the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches one could or can be saved without the sacrament. This is a matter of investigation of an issue of fact, not speculation: look at the teachings of the Magisterium; does it teach it or not?

THE MAGISTERIUM TEACHES THAT baptism of desire COULD OR CAN SAVE.

This is a factual question resolved against you. Period.

Jehanne Mon May 30, 2011 9:54 am

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

I'm going to repeat your mantra: we've been through this a thousand times. You can stick your head in the sand, become enamored of your contradictions, whatever, but the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium does teach that one can go to heaven without baptism under certain conditions (in other words, simply, one "can"):

The Roman Catechism

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.

MRyan has laid this out for you repeatedly.

I'm not further revisiting this with you or anyone else - it's pointless. Believe the Church doesn't teach it, whatever. I'm not pronouncing judgment on you, but merely acknowledging fact and the truth that the Church does teach it, the consequences of someone's rejection of that teaching being another matter. But the teaching is clearly there.

The Church does teach it; no one, myself included, has ever disputed that fact! (Once again, you are pounding on "open doors.") The Church also teaches that a heretic incurs latae sententiae excommunication (1983 Code of Canon Law):

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

So, can a Pope who is a heretic still be the Head of the Church? As Catholics, are we obligated to believe that a heretical Pope can retain his office? Another debate for another thread. The answer is, "No, we are not."

Yes, the Church teaches Baptism of Desire & Blood, and yes, the teaching is clearly there. Of course, that is not in dispute!! Do Baptism of Desire and/or Blood ever happen? No. That's my opinion. So, yes, I believe in Baptism of Desire and Blood; I believe that the Catholic Church teaches that people can go to Heaven without Sacramental Baptism of Water just a I believe that a sitting Pope can excommunicate himself, thereby, losing his office. However, as the Church, clearly, teaches both possibilities, neither, I believe, will ever happen in reality.

So, please stop saying that we (or rather, me) deny Baptism of Desire and Blood. We (I) don't. The Church teaches both doctrines. Can a person be saved without Baptism of Water? Yes, absolutely. Are there people in Heaven who have died without Baptism of Water. No, absolutely not.

MRyan Mon May 30, 2011 10:15 am

pascendi wrote:
And likewise we also have absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision, nor any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith itself. We do however have countless brilliant and inquisitive minds who wish to show their skill on a field of theological battle who claim we must.

So, because there is “absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision”; at least, no “proof” besides the testimony of the Acts of the Martyrs with a recording of tradition of some martyrs who are believed to have suffered and died for Christ without the benefit of the sacrament and whose acts form a part of the Church’s Liturgical traditions, we can simply “reject” the Church’s authentic and ordinary teaching which says “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.”

In other words, because there is “absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision”, Catholics are free to “reject” the “authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” cited above (“presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”), this teaching of the Church does not, as you seem to suggest, “require religious submission of will and intellect”.

Is that right?

And what are we to make of your assertion “nor [is there] any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith” when this clearly suggests that the “loss of faith” that may ensue as a result of religious submission of the mind and will to the Church’s authentic ordinary teaching “presented as true or at least as sure” is due to adherence to a heretical doctrine that is clearly opposed to a dogma of the Faith?

I mean, how can one be subjected to losing the Catholic Faith through submission of the mind and will to a long-held teaching of the Church ... without that same teaching being opposed to the Faith?

You do have a flair for the dramatic and for hyperbole when you suggest that the insidious teaching of the Church called Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire may threaten a good Catholic’s rock-like Faith and his trust in the Church that she cannot teach a heretical doctrine for centuries on end and remain true to who she is.

But then again, if your faith is so weak that religious submission of the mind and will to the possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, as the Church presents it and has always held with “firm conviction” (the teaching having a universal moral consensus of saints and theologians since at least the Council of Trent), threatens that faith, perhaps you really should “deny and reject” the doctrine and continue to mock those who suggest that outright rejection of the authentic ordinary teachings of the Church is always fraught with danger, and should be tempered by adhering to the Church’s guidelines to theologians advising them on how one may legitimately withhold assent of the intellect when a particular teaching cannot be squared in their mind with tradition or with other doctrines, while conforming one’s will to the authority of the ecclesia docens and remaining open to submission of the intellect just as soon as the difficulty is resolved.

What is obvious in such a common-sense and Catholic approach is the notion that the deficiency or conflict most likely resides with one’s faulty understanding of the difficult to reconcile doctrine, even if the presentation of the particular teaching is confusing. But, there is nothing “confusing” about 1258 and 1259 ... the Church speaks clearly and expects Catholics to accept her authentic teaching as true, even if the assent of Faith is not required.

pascendi wrote:To emphasize: no one seems to be able to distinguish between what is of the Faith itself, and what is a product of theology. That's a pretty disconcerting fact. For crying out loud, somebody please get a clue.

Yes. Please, someone, get a clue; for Feeneyites do not seem to be able to distinguish between what is binding as a matter of the Faith itself (revealed truth, defined dogmas, the infallible teaching of the supreme and ordinary magisterium, and definitive acts) and “religious submission of the mind and will to non-revealed authoritative, authentic and ordinary teachings of the magisterium."

Neither do they seem to understand that “When the Magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively’, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” (CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis, “On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”)

Simple, really. But go ahead and misrepresent what I said and have been saying all along, you’re pretty good at that.

Jehanne Mon May 30, 2011 10:33 am

MRyan wrote:
pascendi wrote:
And likewise we also have absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision, nor any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith itself. We do however have countless brilliant and inquisitive minds who wish to show their skill on a field of theological battle who claim we must.

So, because there is “absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision”; at least, no “proof” besides the testimony of the Acts of the Martyrs with a recording of tradition of some martyrs who are believed to have suffered and died for Christ without the benefit of the sacrament and whose acts form a part of the Church’s Liturgical traditions, we can simply “reject” the Church’s authentic and ordinary teaching which says “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."

This is absurd. There have been numerous traditions within the Church of people being raised from the dead to receive Baptism, of water miraculously appearing to provide Baptism, etc., which, of course, "Feeneyites" like to cite in support of their (our) position. Of course, there were martyrs who appeared to have died without Baptism. Are you saying that no one had the hope that such martyrs were, in fact, Baptized? Did the Church's liturgical traditions forbid hope that the martyr in question was, in fact, sacramentally Baptized? But, we're back to "proving a negative" again, aren't we?

Consider the case of the Thuc bishops. Archbishop Thuc allegedly ordained certain individuals to the episcopate; then, he claimed that he, in fact, had withheld intent during those men's ordinations, making the ordinations, of course, invalid. If true, the men in question were never validly ordained as Catholic bishops. Agreed?

Let's say that there was an evil bishop who lived during the 3rd-century who did the exact same thing -- he withheld all intent for all of his episcopate ordinations. This would mean that all of the "bishops" that he "ordained" lacked valid orders, which means that all of the "bishops" that they "ordained" lack valid orders (even if they had used valid matter, form, and intent), also, and so forth. If true, how can we, as Catholics, living 1700 years later be sure that we have a valid episcopate?

We can be sure because the Holy Spirit would never allow such a thing to happen; we know this to be true based upon inference from our Lord's words. The same is true of Sacramental Baptism in Water.

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 10:34 am

Jehanne,

The Church does teach it; no one, myself included, has ever disputed that fact! (Once again, you are pounding on "open doors.")

Incredible.

We don't have to go far. Scroll down (or up):

tornpage wrote:
go to heaven without the sacrament of baptism, but with just the desire for the same.

No, the Church does not teach that

I guess you think your leaving out the proceeding "can" . . . forget about it.

So, what are you trying to mangle, or say: the Church teaches baptism of desire but not that one can or could go to heaven without the sacrament of baptism if it's receipt is impossible?

Look, Pharisee, if the Church teaches one can go to heaven under condition X without the sacrament it teaches one "can" go to heaven without the sacrament.

We agree that it doesn't happen in fact, but you keep dancing and quibbling and making the mess on this issue.

Get real already.

Jehanne Mon May 30, 2011 10:38 am

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

The Church does teach it; no one, myself included, has ever disputed that fact! (Once again, you are pounding on "open doors.")

Incredible.

We don't have to go far. Scroll down (or up):

tornpage wrote:
go to heaven without the sacrament of baptism, but with just the desire for the same.

No, the Church does not teach that

Sure, and the Church teaches that a Pope can lose his office through heresy. Are we, as Catholics, therefore, obligated to believe that? If so, are we are obligated to believe that such happens? Just because something can happen does not mean (let alone "prove") that it does happen.

I am not sure about the "name calling." Baptism is a wondrous gift that remits all punishment, temporal and eternal. It seems that you are the ones who are being Pharisaical for asserting that there are individuals who desire Baptism but who die without it and have to suffer in Purgatory due to that fact.

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 10:44 am

It seems that you are the ones who are being Pharisaical for asserting that they are individuals who desire Baptism but who die without it and have to suffer in Purgatory due to that fact.

Listen, dealing with this, considering it in context, my "name calling" is milk toast.

The whole gist of my last 4 posts or whatever, and the analogy with a heretic pope theory and St. Robert's opinion that is doesn't happen in fact, but would, if it did . . . was that it doesn't happen in fact but would if it did. And the Church teaches that it would if it did - not me.

Really.

No wonder you don't get it.

Jehanne Mon May 30, 2011 10:52 am

tornpage wrote:
It seems that you are the ones who are being Pharisaical for asserting that they are individuals who desire Baptism but who die without it and have to suffer in Purgatory due to that fact.

Listen, dealing with this, considering it in context, my "name calling" is milk toast.

The whole gist of my last 4 posts or whatever, and the analogy with a heretic pope theory and St. Robert's opinion that is doesn't happen in fact, but would, if it did . . . was that it doesn't happen in fact but would if it did. And the Church teaches that it would if it did - not me.

Really.

No wonder you don't get it.

The Church also teaches that people who desire Baptism but who die without it suffer the temporal punishment of Purgatory; the Church also teaches that the punishments in Purgatory are similar to "hell fire." It's a painful place where people suffer. What "Feeneyites" are asserting is that the One and Triune God will provide sacramental Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it, which, unlike Baptism of Desire, will remit both the eternal and temporal punishments.

It seems to me that our view is more in line with the loving nature of a Perfect Being.

MRyan Mon May 30, 2011 11:31 am

MRyan wrote:
And what are we to make of your assertion “nor [is there] any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith” when this clearly suggests that the “loss of faith” that may ensue as a result of religious submission of the mind and will to the Church’s authentic ordinary teaching “presented as true or at least as sure” is due to adherence to a heretical doctrine that is clearly opposed to a dogma of the Faith?

I mean, how can one be subjected to losing the Catholic Faith through submission of the mind and will to a long-held teaching of the Church ... without that same teaching being opposed to the Faith?

Nice response, wrong argument ... conceded; I just now caught my faulty reading.

But this is simple, since the Church does not require the assent of Faith to her teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire, how can the Church require us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith”?

As Jehanne would say, that is a non-sequitur. But go ahead and keep building the straw-men, that's what you do.

Jehanne Mon May 30, 2011 11:51 am

MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote:
And what are we to make of your assertion “nor [is there] any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith” when this clearly suggests that the “loss of faith” that may ensue as a result of religious submission of the mind and will to the Church’s authentic ordinary teaching “presented as true or at least as sure” is due to adherence to a heretical doctrine that is clearly opposed to a dogma of the Faith?

I mean, how can one be subjected to losing the Catholic Faith through submission of the mind and will to a long-held teaching of the Church ... without that same teaching being opposed to the Faith?

Nice response, wrong argument ... conceded; I just now caught my faulty reading.

But this is simple, since the Church does not require the assent of Faith to her teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire, how can the Church require us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith”?

As Jehanne would say, that is a non-sequitur. But go ahead and keep building the straw-men, that's what you do.

Once again, you are claiming that the Church requires us to believe that there are individuals who die without Baptism and who suffer in Purgatory because of that fact.

tornpage Mon May 30, 2011 12:24 pm

Once again, you are claiming that the Church requires us to believe that there are individuals who die without Baptism and who suffer in Purgatory because of that fact.

Wrong.

If you were a horse, you'd be dead of thirst lying in a beautiful freshwater river.

MRyan Mon May 30, 2011 12:31 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Once again, you are claiming that the Church requires us to believe that there are individuals who die without Baptism and who suffer in Purgatory because of that fact.

Absolutely not; and nowhere did I ever say or imply that. This is just one of your “banging the open door” logical fallacies where basic theological concepts, and the correct understanding of Church teaching, are simply beyond your grasp.

If there are souls in purgatory who died in a state of sanctifying grace (sans the sacrament), they are NOT there because of the fact that they died without the sacrament, they are there for the same reason everyone else is there, and as the Doctors teach, because of those venial sins which have not been fully remitted (as occurs in the sacrament and in baptism of blood). God wills it and allows it for reasons we have no business second guessing.

You are seriously confused.

pascendi Mon May 30, 2011 12:44 pm

I think that what has always accounted for much of the disagreement in these sorts of discussion is an almost obsessive/compulsive concern over the supposed horror of a "Church teaching an error". This too comes not from the Faith itself but is a product of the human mind and human fear, and it seems to me somewhat related to the spiritual disease of scrupulosity. Scrupulosity is a fear-based, loveless and self-interested obsession with perfection, and on the theological level the same seems to be taking place, this constant worry over avoiding the appearance of having accidentally or intentionally stated that the Church has erred. I remember ten years ago on various forums this same divergence in positions based on precisely the same unclear principles surrounding "the Church teaching error".

Maybe some assumptions need to be knocked down, maybe they really aren't of the Catholic Faith itself either, and maybe these reductio ad absurdum arguments using the proposition "Church cannot teach error" aren't really as effective as all that.

The Church is infallible when she says She is infallible, not when layman she is. The is absolutely no reason why imperfections and questionable theological theories, and errors of various kinds cannot show up in the CCC or an encyclical. I haven't yet seen one ERROR of the Church which, to my mind, would cause anyone to lose their Faith or prevent someone from entering the Church.

Yes, the CCC can have errors in it, and still be a "sure norm", and approved, and quite usable. Imperfect theological speculations can be tolerated and even promoted by the Church. No one has to walk on pins and needles in fear of accidentally or intentionally running afoul of this specter "the Church teaching error".

MRyan Tue May 31, 2011 11:06 am

pascendi wrote:I think that what has always accounted for much of the disagreement in these sorts of discussion is an almost obsessive/compulsive concern over the supposed horror of a "Church teaching an error".

Imagine that, a concern, and an “obsessive/compulsive” one at that, over the “supposed horror of a 'Church teaching an error'”, the latter of which is of course entirely possible (so much for the "obsessive/compulsive horror” of it all).

But we are not talking about any old peripheral, incidental or stand-alone and innocuous “horrific” alleged “error” of the magisterium that can be corrected, reversed or reformed in the next edition of the Roman Catechism, in an instruction of the CDF or in a subsequent official magisterial document. No, we are talking about an alleged “error” on a matter of salvation that has been taught by the Church for centuries on end and that is directly related to the Church’s understanding of her own dogma on Baptism.

Let’s go back to the first page of this thread and my initial response to the arguments of Adam Miller, who is an MICM third order tertiary with degrees in theology and philosophy, who, in speaking about the possibility of salvation for the hypothetical unbaptized catechumen who either 1) dies in a car accident on his way to be Baptized; 2) or is slain by angry Protestants while saying the Rosary, said:

"Neither could go to Heaven, since they were not baptized in water. This is de fide definite … [and] “we are heretics if we say they go to Heaven”.

Some of the old time Feeneyites will recognize the argument, for that is precisely what was held by a large contingent of Feeneyites from the very beginning of the movement that did not have a problem with baptism of blood and baptism of desire prior to 1952. As Adam Miller suggested, it is really quite simple. If it is de fide definita that no one can get to heaven without being Baptized in water, there is no “debate” and any proposition that suggests there can be salvation without water Baptism is heresy.

In fact, that very argument is made by certain Feeneyites here, but they do not seem to have the courage of their convictions (with the exception of the Feeneyite sede contingent) to label that which is directly opposed to a defined dogma of the faith for what it must be … HERESY.

Wait, that’s a bit extreme. Well, is it? What is extreme about it? Is someone going to suggest that the alleged “error” that is opposed to a dogma of the faith is only a “material error” (shhh … don’t say “material heresy”) that reflects only the confused mind of the fallible ordinary magisterium; a magisterium that does seem to understand the meaning of one of her own dogmas on baptism and salvation? I guess that would mean the “mind of the Church” is subject to centuries long bouts of amnesia, dementia and “material error” when it comes to remembering what her own dogmas actually say and mean.

Thank goodness we have Feeneyites to correct the Church and to keep the true Faith.

OK, I must admit that I’m confused on the Feeneyite position. Is the dogma that says that absolutely no once can go to heaven without water Baptism de fide definita, or isn’t it?

If it is, why does Br. Andre say that both baptism of blood and baptism of desire are “orthodox” and that he is aware of the accepted teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the common opinion of theologians? Did I mention that this “common opinion” has enjoyed a universal moral consensus of theologians since at least the Council of Trent? For those who want to challenge that, go ahead and produce a single Doctor, saint, theologian or Pope since the Council of Trent who “denied” baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Sorry, I forgot that this is an irrelevant argument to Feeneyites. If only a Feeneyite handful possess the true faith (the dogmas have been passed down to Feenyites "as they are written")¸ all of those "erroneous" Doctors, theologians, fallible popes and teachings of the (heh, heh) “ordinary magisterium” can go pound sand … isn’t that right Jehanne?

I will assume Br. Andre is also aware of the teachings of the Catechism of Trent, Canon Law, the Papal Allocution of Pope Pius XII and of course the CCC, which sums up the traditional teaching thus:

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.

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.

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.

This is the authentic traditional teaching of the ordinary magisterium that Pascendi calls erroneous. Last time I checked, erroneous means "false". And why is it false? Well, it contradicts a defined dogma of Faith. Is that right, or isn't it?

Hey, no big deal, just a simple "error" about some innocuous and errant theological construct on how the Church understands her dogma on Baptism that the Church has been throwing out there for centuries, and that has never been contested since the Council of Trent (until 1952 in Boston).

No big deal, get over it. The Church can continuously teach error on a matter of faith and salvation that allegedly contradicts a dogma of the faith, and she can do so for centuries on end. So what?

Sheesh. “The Church is infallible when she says She is infallible, not when layman she is”, and the Church is in error when some layman says she is in error, and not when the Church says she not is in error and speaks the truth.

The ordinary magisterium of laymen … awesome!

Roguejim Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:15 pm

Dear Jim,

In response to your inquiry, I can say that Brother Francis taught that the adherent of the so-called "baptism of desire," in the strict sense in which it was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other orthodox theologians, cannot be called a heretic, or have his orthodoxy questioned in the least. This is because the Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical, and we cannot presume to censure what the Church herself has not condemned.

I should explain that by the words "the strict sense," above, I mean that sense which does not deny the necessity of explicit Catholic faith and subjection to the Holy Father.

This does not diminish our position on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is that it is of absolute necessity. It is merely to state that those who disagree with us on this point cannot be labeled heretics.

Feel free to quote me on all this, if you like.

--

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Homepage | The CAT is on the Prowl!

pascendi Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:45 am

Good response.

Roguejim Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:10 am

pascendi wrote:Good response.

Nah, not really. Just begs the question as to why, in Bro. Andre's mind, the Church would ever condemn someone for holding to a teaching that is taught by the Church Herself. Bizarre. But at least he's big enough to not want to accuse the Church of heresy. Yep, mighty big...

Jehanne Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:44 am

Roguejim wrote:
pascendi wrote:Good response.

Nah, not really. Just begs the question as to why, in Bro. Andre's mind, the Church would ever condemn someone for holding to a teaching that is taught by the Church Herself. Bizarre. But at least he's big enough to not want to accuse the Church of heresy. Yep, mighty big...

"Feeneyites" have never condemned Baptism of Desire/Blood for catechumens, that is, for individuals who consciously accept the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would invite anyone to provide a citation that says otherwise. Applying Baptism of Desire and/or Blood to those who individuals who have no conscious (indeed, to those individuals with an opposing) desire to receive it is heretical. (We are back to denying human free will again.) Saint Thomas' teaching on implicit desire for Baptism was one of having that desire encapsulated within one's explicit faith of the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and submission of one's will to the Roman Pontiff. (I accept this teaching as a possibility, which has always been the case, in spite of those on this board who would try to "quote mine" to misrepresent my views.) Simply asserting the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism is not heretical, which I believe to be the case of everyone who will make it to the Beatific Vision. "Feeneyites" simply assert, as a theological opinion, that those individuals whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life will also be predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

tornpage Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:40 am

Jehanne,

"Feeneyites" simply assert, as a theological opinion, that those individuals whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life will also be predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

I wish that were so. Simply, they do more than this - at least many of them do. Is Father Feeney a Feeneyite? He said one could "never" be saved by baptism of desire.

The Feeneyite cause (because of the Father Feeney position identified) is thus greatly weakened and it's noble assertion of the necessity of the Catholic faith is ignored because of this great beam in its eye.

Tell me, since you seem to be somewhat associated with the Center: I believe one must hold the Catholic faith to be saved; that this may simply be a belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity (but I like to think explicitly conscious of Christ's Suffering and Passion also, but that may be included in the Incarnation - but either way I'll let that go), with the rest of the belief in all the necessary dogmas "implied"; that one may have an implied baptism of desire by virtue of one's explicit faith in Christ, and that such an implied baptism of desire would satisfy the necessity of baptism (which may be met through baptism of blood and baptism of desire - including a non-explicit desire for the sacrament, such as in baptism of repentance or of the Spirit); that it is impossible for someone who denies (simply disagrees with or asserts the contrary to) a dogma of the Catholic faith to have the Catholic faith necessary for salvation; and, as a matter of fact, God providentially arranges it so that the elect all receive baptism in water (I am not dogmatic about that, and accept the possibility that some are actually saved by baptism of desire, though I don't see any reason (or believe I am required by the Church) to maintain that it in fact happens).

Am I a Feeneyite?

MRyan Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:53 am

Jehanne wrote:
"Feeneyites" have never condemned Baptism of Desire/Blood for catechumens, that is, for individuals who consciously accept the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would invite anyone to provide a citation that says otherwise. Applying Baptism of Desire and/or Blood to those who individuals who have no conscious (indeed, to those individuals with an opposing) desire to receive it is heretical. (We are back to denying human free will again.) Saint Thomas' teaching on implicit desire for Baptism was one of having that desire encapsulated within one's explicit faith of the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and submission of one's will to the Roman Pontiff. (I accept this teaching as a possibility, which has always been the case, in spite of those on this board who would try to "quote mine" to misrepresent my views.) Simply asserting the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism is not heretical, which I believe to be the case of everyone who will make it to the Beatific Vision.

Here we go again:

Applying Baptism of Desire and/or Blood to those who individuals who have no conscious … desire to receive it is heretical.

Br. Andre wrote:

… Regardless of what “Feeneyites [sic] are [supposedly] wont to claim,” I have long explained to anyone that would listen what I learned from Brother Francis on this point. That is, one who has Faith, and, by the promptings of actual grace, makes a perfect act of the love of God, can have a desire for the sacrament implicit in this infused supernatural Charity. This is because Charity is the summit of all the virtues and, as it were, contains all of them. In Thomistic language, the desire of the sacrament would be a “commanded act” of Charity (or affective charity) as distinguished from an “elicited act” (or effective charity). (See, for instance, IIa IIae, Q. 32, A. 1 for St. Thomas’ use of this distinction.) I believe that such an act can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God.) Of course, because something “implicit” is “contained in” something else (as St. Thomas admirably points out in the passage of De Veritate you cited) then the supernatural desire for the sacrament must contained in another supernatural act — in this case, Charity.

… All notions of “implicit faith” or “implicit desire” which postulate a supernatural act being implicit in something natural are heretical and would certainly be stridently opposed by St. Thomas. In 1679 Pope Innocent XI condemned the proposition that, “A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification” (Denz. 1173). Faith, to be Divine and Catholic, must come from Revelation.

While there are many who attempt to defend no salvation outside the Church with only a rudimentary knowledge of theology — whose “zeal is not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2) — those of us who have had the joy to study under Brother Francis know these sound theological principles and do not consider it a betrayal of our “hard line” to accept that one supernatural act can be implicit in another. (http://catholicism.org/letter-to-bedfordshire-html.html#more-536)

Poor Jehanne, always inserting foot into mouth .. his "open door". Btw, this also demolishes your wacky theory which has the implicit desire to enter the Church and/or to receive Baptism destroying free will. It has not gone unnoticed that you have not responded to my rebuttal (citing magisterial texts) explaining how free will is intrinsic to one's desire to do the will of God in all things; whether these desires (acts of free will) are explicit or implicit in one's supernatural acts of faith and charity.

Jehanne wrote:"Feeneyites" simply assert, as a theological opinion, that those individuals whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life will also be predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

Really? Tell that to your fellow Feeneyite travelers on this forum.

Jehanne Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:08 pm

This is just another example of quote mining, so I am not even going to bother with it. Interested readers can see for themselves what the views of the Saint Benedict Center are:

http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html

I have, by the way, applied to be a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, so Brother Andre Maria has access to my blog, other writings, etc.

True implicit supernatural faith, by the way, cannot at all be opposed to Catholic Revelation, because they both come from the same source, the One and Triune God. However, the Saint Benedict Centers clearly, teach, the absolute need for explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as an act of one's own free will.

MRyan Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:14 pm

Jehanne wrote:This is just another example of quote mining, so I am not even going to bother with it. Interested readers can see for themselves what the views of the Saint Benedict Center are:

http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html

I have, by the way, applied to be a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, so Brother Andre Maria has access to my blog, other writings, etc.

True implicit supernatural faith, by the way, cannot at all be opposed to Catholic Revelation, because they both come from the same source, the One and Triune God. However, the Saint Benedict Centers clearly, teach, the absolute need for explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as an act of one's own free will.

So it is“quote mining” when I cite one of the very few sources you will actually listen to, the recognized leader of the St. Benedict Center, NH, and your future third order MICM boss who specifically refutes in a remarkable word-for-word rebuttal your specious accusation: “Applying Baptism of Desire and/or Blood to those who individuals who have no conscious … desire to receive it is heretical.”

You then have the temerity to supply a link from the same website so that “readers can see for themselves what the views of the Saint Benedict Center are”, when the linked article in no way supports your absurd accusation and is not in any way opposed to the clear words of Br. Andre and St. Thomas Aquinas on implicit desire.

You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself instead of correcting your manifest errors. Just like oh “by the way … True implicit supernatural faith … cannot at all be opposed to Catholic Revelation”, as if that little irrelevant blurb somehow recuses you from taking responsibility for your accusation of heresy. But this is how you operate; you keep throwing stuff on the wall hoping no one will notice that you haven’t a clue and can’t admit that you are wrong.

So you applied to be a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center, and …. Br. Andre is responsible for monitoring your blog and other writings? Poor man; I guess he gets an "F". But, I'm not sure that he would agree with you on his job description.

Adam Miller has been around longer than Br. Andre, so the latter is not about to “correct” Miller’s opinion” that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are heretical; he simply distances himself and the St. Benedict Center from that “hard-line”. Why do you think that there are so many factions of the St. Benedict Center? But you are a different story since you will fall directly under the authority of Br. Andre, so go ahead and tempt Br. Andre to “correct” your writings – perhaps that’s the only thing that can reign you in since you always pretend to speak for “Feeneyites”.

Jehanne Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:08 pm

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

"Feeneyites" simply assert, as a theological opinion, that those individuals whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life will also be predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

I wish that were so. Simply, they do more than this - at least many of them do. Is Father Feeney a Feeneyite? He said one could "never" be saved by baptism of desire.

Father Feeney's Bread of Life was a polemic, as evidenced by the fact that large portions of it were written in the second person.

MRyan wrote:"Applying Baptism of Desire and/or Blood to those who individuals who have no conscious ... desire to receive it is heretical."

It's nice to see that you "excised" part of my quote. I presume that you would agree with me that an individual who is consciously opposed to Baptism cannot "desire" it.

I explain on my blog what true implicit faith is:

True implicit faith is, first of all, an act of a person's own free will; it occurs when an individual hears the Gospel of Jesus Christ and embraces it fully, mind and soul. Having come to explicit faith in the One and Only Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Creator of all that is "seen and unseen," the Alpha and the Omega, our new convert resolves to believe all and everything that God has revealed through His Son, Jesus Christ. Since Christ and His Mystical Body, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, are "one thing," true implicit faith also means submission of one's mind and will to the Church, which is the keeper and guardian of the One True Faith.

One cannot have true implicit faith and profess something false:

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (ST, I-II, Q. 103, Art. 4)

True implicit faith bears fruit; so an individual who truly desires Baptism, even implicitly, will see his/her "seed of faith" bear fruit which must become the vow to receive Baptism, otherwise, that faith will shrivel and die; this is what Trent and Saint Thomas taught. The idea that one could "implicitly desire" Baptism for his/her whole life, for years and decades on end, is heretical and absurd. As I state on my blog:

Likewise, one cannot believe in a Creator God without believing in His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, for they are, as stated in the Athanasian Creed, "all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal." And to believe in Jesus Christ is to embrace His Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church, the earthly head of which is the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ.

MRyan Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:26 pm

Jehanne,

The parenthetical part of your quote was excised because it is a complete straw-man, fabrication and product of your wholly defective "understanding" of the so-called "heretical" Holy Office Letter. Your defective understanding has tainted everything you write on the subject.

I think its time we address the Letter in greater detail and get this on the table (especially since Tornpage has a thread on this subject as well).

All in due time.

pascendi Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:40 pm

Roguejim wrote:
pascendi wrote:Good response.

Nah, not really. Just begs the question as to why, in Bro. Andre's mind, the Church would ever condemn someone for holding to a teaching that is taught by the Church Herself. Bizarre. But at least he's big enough to not want to accuse the Church of heresy. Yep, mighty big...

I read this several times, and to be honest, I have no idea what you mean. I reread his several times, and it makes sense.

That last sentence... should I think ill of Bro. Andre? It sounds like you have more to add. Would you? It sounds like the next in a series is on his way out.

pascendi Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:20 pm

MRyan wrote:But we are not talking about any old peripheral, incidental or stand-alone and innocuous “horrific” alleged “error” of the magisterium that can be corrected, reversed or reformed in the next edition of the Roman Catechism, in an instruction of the CDF or in a subsequent official magisterial document.

I don't think God wants it corrected. Granted, I'm speaking on God's behalf when I say that, but thank... well, God, that He is more merciful to me than some of my fellow Catholics. If I just happen to slip out of lockstep thinking with Him, it generally seems to go better for me than falling out of lockstep with my local Latin Mass crowd or gee whizzers, clowns on the internet, like you.

A lot of "Feeneyites" hope for some future dogmatic clarification in this matter. Some swear it must happen. I don't think it needs to, I don't think it will, and get this: if it did happen, it isn't going to affect anyone's chances for salvation, in my humble opinion. I seriously do not imagine that God wants us to be so absolutely sure of His secret workings to save souls. It is an intimate matter, and figuring that we all have our hands full trying to save our own, we should be far too busy to pretend to know who else got "what they needed".

"What they needed" is baptism and whole bunch of other stuff. That is what I do know. The "how" of it all I don't know.

And as Fr. Feeney might state, neither do you. And the Church doesn't dogmatically state one way or the other.

pascendi Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:32 pm

Would anyone be willing to come forward and state that I must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order that I might keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled?

What about you, Jim?

Roguejim Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:25 am

pascendi wrote:
Roguejim wrote:
pascendi wrote:Good response.

Nah, not really. Just begs the question as to why, in Bro. Andre's mind, the Church would ever condemn someone for holding to a teaching that is taught by the Church Herself. Bizarre. But at least he's big enough to not want to accuse the Church of heresy. Yep, mighty big...

I read this several times, and to be honest, I have no idea what you mean. I reread his several times, and it makes sense.

That last sentence... should I think ill of Bro. Andre? It sounds like you have more to add. Would you? It sounds like the next in a series is on his way out.

I will try and rephrase my statement in language befitting someone struggling in your present "mansion".

Bro Andre Marie:

"In response to your inquiry, I can say that Brother Francis taught that the adherent of the so-called "baptism of desire," in the strict sense in which it was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other orthodox theologians, cannot be called a heretic, or have his orthodoxy questioned in the least. This is because the Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical, and we cannot presume to censure what the Church herself has not condemned.... It is merely to state that those who disagree with us on this point cannot be labeled heretics."

Well, the more I read the paragraph above by the Brother, the screwier it appears. The correct reason for not labeling as heretics those who adhere to the so-called "baptism of desire", is because it is an authentic Church teaching to which they adhere. "The Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical", BECAUSE IT IS HER OWN POSITION! Nice dodge, Brother.

Jehanne Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:37 am

No, you are misreading it. Right or wrong, the St. Benedict Center considers Baptism of Desire and/or Blood to be valid theological opinions, when applied to catechumens alone, that is, to individuals who have explicit Catholic faith and submission to the Roman Pontiff. Of course, they do not adhere to those opinions.

Guest Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:12 am

Roguejim wrote:
[/i]
Well, the more I read the paragraph above by the Brother, the screwier it appears. The correct reason for not labeling as heretics those who adhere to the so-called "baptism of desire", is because it is an authentic Church teaching to which they adhere. "The Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical", BECAUSE IT IS HER OWN POSITION! Nice dodge, Brother.

Did the Church ever censure St. Thomas Aquinas for his position on the Immaculate Conception? There are a lot of things the Church does not see fit to censure although they are not necessarily right.

columba Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:16 am

Roguejim wrote:
Well, the more I read the paragraph above by the Brother, the screwier it appears. The correct reason for not labeling as heretics those who adhere to the so-called "baptism of desire", is because it is an authentic Church teaching to which they adhere. "The Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical", BECAUSE IT IS HER OWN POSITION! Nice dodge, Brother.

Jim the same logic you use to suggest that Bro Andre Marie is dodging the issue can also be used in reverse. i.e; The reason the Church has never seen fit to censure the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire/B as heretical is, BECAUSE IT IS HER OWN POSITION backed by Her OWN dogmatic pronouncements on the necessity of Sacramental Baptism for salvation.
Until such time that it is made clear (from the top) as to what we must believe, either position can justly be held without the charge of heresy. The worst that could befall either is to be a "material heretic" which of course no one would be if they were told definitively what they must believe.

columba Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:23 am

BTW; Welcome pascendi. Good to see you here. Tower of David Ministry Back online. - Page 3 95220

MRyan Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:50 pm

pascendi wrote:
MRyan wrote:But we are not talking about any old peripheral, incidental or stand-alone and innocuous “horrific” alleged “error” of the magisterium that can be corrected, reversed or reformed in the next edition of the Roman Catechism, in an instruction of the CDF or in a subsequent official magisterial document.

I don't think God wants it corrected. Granted, I'm speaking on God's behalf when I say that, but thank... well, God, that He is more merciful to me than some of my fellow Catholics. If I just happen to slip out of lockstep thinking with Him, it generally seems to go better for me than falling out of lockstep with my local Latin Mass crowd or gee whizzers, clowns on the internet, like you.

A lot of "Feeneyites" hope for some future dogmatic clarification in this matter. Some swear it must happen. I don't think it needs to, I don't think it will, and get this: if it did happen, it isn't going to affect anyone's chances for salvation, in my humble opinion. I seriously do not imagine that God wants us to be so absolutely sure of His secret workings to save souls. It is an intimate matter, and figuring that we all have our hands full trying to save our own, we should be far too busy to pretend to know who else got "what they needed".

"What they needed" is baptism and whole bunch of other stuff. That is what I do know. The "how" of it all I don't know.

And as Fr. Feeney might state, neither do you. And the Church doesn't dogmatically state one way or the other.

Of course, I get the pascendi doctrine: What is not “dogmatically” stated may be denied and freely rejected, even if the doctrine is on a matter of salvation and directly related to how the Church understands her dogmas on Baptism and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus; and has been taught by the authentic, living and ordinary magisterium of the Church since at least the Council of Trent (and still today with even greater conviction).

Let's see what the Church has to say about "dissent" (taken from the CDF's "Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian"):

B. The problem of dissent

33. Dissent has different aspects... More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms. With such critical opposition, he would even be making a contribution to the development of doctrine.

34. Dissent is generally defended by various arguments, two of which are more basic in character. The first lies in the order of hermeneutics. The documents of the Magisterium, it is said, reflect nothing more than a debatable theology. The second takes theological pluralism sometimes to the point of a relativism which calls the integrity of the faith into question. Here the interventions of the Magisterium would have their origin in one theology among many theologies, while no particular theology, however, could presume to claim universal normative status. In opposition to and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of "parallel magisterium" of theologians.(27)

In this case, there has arisen a kind of "parallel magisterium" of laymen, since there are no theologians who "reject" baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Indeed, how many times has it been asserted here that the teaching of baptism of desire in the Catechism of Trent, Canon Law, a Papal Allocution, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the CCC, etc. “reflect nothing more than a debatable theology”, seeing that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not, allegedly, "authentic expressions (of doctrine) of the magisterium", but are only debatable, and in this case, “erroneous” theological constructs we are free to accept or reject?

Hmmm... and how odd that not a single Feeneyite on this forum has commented on the previous section of this document by the CDF that clearly lays out how one may withhold the assent of the intellect when confronted with a difficult to reconcile doctrine, while conforming one's will the the ecclesia docens by being open to her guidance and authority until the issue is resolved in one's own mind.

Whatever, moving on...

The Church also teaches "What they needed" is baptism and whole bunch of other stuff; that other “stuff” being supernatural Faith and Charity. But you simply dismiss the well-known distinctions taught by Aquinas that provide the theological underpinning for the Church’s understanding of “absolute necessity”, with Faith, Charity and the fruit of the Sacrament being intrinsic to salvation, and with the instruments for the ordinary transmission of sanctifying grace being those divine and even temporary visible institutions and sacramental “helps” to salvation that God does not necessarily bind Himself to for the transmission of Himself in sanctifying grace and for regeneration as a son of God and heir to the kingdom.

Salvific baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not "binding" matters of revealed truth, but they are authentic and ordinary teachings of the Church she holds and teaches with "firm conviction". Who are you to accuse her of teaching "errors" that suggest that the Church's errors are opposed to her own dogmas?

So it is no contradiction to say, your exquisite layman's logic notwithstanding, that the sacrament of baptism is necessary by divine decree to every soul for salvation, and that no one can be saved apart from the sacrament, in re, or in voto; for that most “illogical” of divine institutions, Holy Mother Church, says so.

Of course, no one need understand the “how” of it all, but only to trust that the teaching authority of the divine institution, instrument and "sacrament of salvation" will not (and I say cannot) lead the Faithful astray on matters of salvation by teaching a false doctrine for centuries on end.

Unfortunately, and as usual, you have failed to address my actual arguments, and I wonder if you can; all we get is the usual dissembling, red herrings and evasive fluff. This blurb from a previous post is a typical example:

In my opinion, firstly, all should stop pretending that the Church is actually claiming to know, from the Deposit itself, what happens to souls in sticky situations, as if She knew. She doesn't.

The perfect strawman; but you sound so full of “grown-up” wisdom, no? Actually, you sound more like the "gee whizzer internet clowns” you accuse me of being.

The Church has never claimed to know (let alone to know “from the Deposit itself”) what happens to souls in sticky situations as if she can know with any certainty the state of any given soul, but she does teach what WILL happen, given certain conditions: “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.” And, she assures us: “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.”

Oh yes, let’s all “stop pretending”; sound advice. Take it.

I’m glad that you don’t take yourself too seriously, for you are indeed like the teetotaler who keeps showing up in bars saying it's an absolute waste of time and humanity to spend time in bars. But you do have a mission, apparently, which appears to be to save us from ourselves and, for the greater good, you will drink of the devil's brew and spew forth your wisdom gained in those “dark nights” of lost and found Faith.

Swell. Welcome back to the land of “internet clowns” where “No Thought of Mine [and Yours], No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!”

But please get off your meandering horse, and how about addressing my actual arguments?

Sponsored content