Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Jehanne Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:18 pm

There's nothing personal in it, and I thought that it would be useful for this forum:

Dear Father Harrison,

I am a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, and I very much enjoyed reading your essay, "Father Feeney and the Implicitum Votum Ecclesiae Part A. Who Is In Fact ‘Outside The Church’?" available here:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt149.html

(I provide these links for the courtesy of my religious superior, Brother Andre Marie, and my Third Order mentor, Mr. Gene DeLalla.)

Let me say from the onset that I agree, in essence, with everything that you state in your article, but before coming to the "contentious" issue of "Category 7," I would like to make a few observations up front. First, I believe that your article would have benefited from the following text given at the Council of Florence:

"The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed."

My second observation has to do with your statement, "The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess" (p. 26). It follows that any doctrinally novel affirmation that may be found in the CCC (such as the statement in #1261 encouraging us to hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism) should not be seen as a new intervention of the authentic magisterium that would require the assent of all Catholics." Of course, if the Magisterium is allowing us to have "hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism," then certainly, we are also "allowed to have hope" for all the martyrs who have been alleged to have died without Baptism, our hope being that they did, in fact, die with Baptism, if only by miraculous means. Likewise, if the recent International Theological Commission can find positive reasons in the Church's Magisterium and liturgy for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, then certainly we can find positive reasons as to why those whom the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life have, without exception, also been predestined by Him to end this life with Sacramental Baptism in Water. For we all agree, that is better to die with Baptism than without it.

As Catholics, are we called to "have faith" in things which do not occur? As for an alleged unbaptized martyr ending his/her life without the Sacrament, are we asked to "believe in a negative" much less try to "prove" one, that is, that something did not occur, in this case, that someone who had died was, in fact, not baptized? Were the faithful who attended the funeral Masses of such martyrs in times past explicitly told "not to hope" that the individual, in question, was not sacramentally baptized before that person's untimely death? It seems silly to even ask such questions. For, once again, we all agree that it is better to die with Baptism than without it, so it seems heretical and absurd to say that the faithful are "not allowed" to find positive reasons within the Church's tradition as to why the One and Triune God may at least be willing to provide Baptism to all who sincerely desire that Sacrament, if only by miraculous means or perhaps even an angel, as Saint Thomas discusses in his Summa.

As for Category 7, there is no doubt that such a category of individuals exist. At the posthumous Trial of Rehabiliation of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, "Joan of Arc"), Inquisitor-General Jean Brehal talked about Joan's "simplicity" in not understanding some of the deep theological concepts that had been presented to her a quarter of century earlier at her Trial of Condemnation and how such simplicity excused her from the sin of heresy, even if some of her replies to the Inquisition trying her appeared to be contrary to the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, no English translation exists for Brehal's "Summarium" anywhere online, but in it, Archbishop Brehal makes clear the Church's distinction between material & formal heresy.

Still, does "No" always mean "Yes" or even most of the time? After all, if individuals in Category 7 truly do have human free will, whether they are born as Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants, etc., do not they have the ability to choose what they do and do not profess? And, how could you, I, or anyone else possibly ever presume to know that someone was even in Category 7 or in Category 8? Or, how could someone in Category 7 ever truly "know" that he/she was, in fact, in that category and not in Category 8? After all, if we assume that someone was in Category 7 but that person was, in fact, in Category 8, will we have made a grievous error with respect to the eternal salvation of that person's immortal soul, and equally important, the salvation of our own soul? Conversely, if we presume someone to be in Category 8 but who was, in fact, in Category 7, what "harm" could we possibly do to that person's chances of eternal salvation by speaking the Truth to them?

Either way, whether Category 7 is "nearly full" or "nearly empty" vis-à-vis Category 8, we should be always be truthful, shouldn't we? For in proclaiming the Truth to those individuals who are in Category 7 & 8 (indeed, all the other categories, also!) how could we ever be "harming" them in any way, shape, or form? We should all hope that Category 7 is full as compared to Category 8, but since we can never know that Category 8 is completely empty, our mission should be clear -- to proclaim the One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

This is why I have chosen to be a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center. I hope that my thoughts on this matter have been useful.

Blessings,

Don

columba Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:50 pm

I must take issue with Fr. Harrison on some of his arguments. (“How dare you,” I hear Mike say, but if I can take issue with certain popes then this should be considered no big deal).
I'll highligt Fr. Harrison's quotes in color so as to make them easier to read.
I don't feel he has proved what he set out to prove.

For instance, many modern Catholics assume that Feeney adopted the shocking view – clearly incompatible with explicit magisterial teaching from the time of Blessed Pope Pius IX onwards – that some people, including some who have never even heard of the Catholic Church, will be punished eternally by God for failing to comply with a divine command of which they are inculpably and invincibly ignorant. That is so flagrantly unjust that even a child would realize an all-good and merciful God could never act thus, right? Right,

I have never read any explicit magisterial teaching that states that there are in reality souls who are inculpably and invincibly ignorant, but even if such souls do exist, Fr Harrison has made the claim that the inculpably and invincibly ignorant could not be punished by God. But I believe his claim is not based on theological reasoning but rather on emotional reasoning, because his reason being; “..an all-good and merciful God could never act thus, right? Right,” without taking into consideration that such a fate (from God's perspective) may neither be contrary to His goodness nor mercy but rather totally in accord with his justice, for as St Paul says, (who's teaching -as we know- forms part of the deposit of faith), “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:3) Fr Harrison has already assumed a conclusion going through the steps as to how he came to this conclusion.

“..indeed. However, on reading what Feeney and his supporters actually say, one finds that this is a mere caricature of their position. They do not claim that those who die invincibly ignorant of Catholic truth will be sent to Hell as a punishment for failing to join the true Church. Rather, they say, all such invincibly ignorant persons will always in fact die with other unrepented mortal sins, committed with full knowledge and consent, on their conscience; and it will be for those sins that they are damned.

In fact Fr Feeney is merely stating the obvious, that all have sinned (except the Blessed Virgin) and outside the Church there can be no remission of sin.

In the view of certain Catholics with a laudable desire to be strong papal loyalists, it would really not matter too much even if the magisterium had in fact contradicted itself over whether non-Catholics can be saved. I am referring here to those who incline toward a kind of naïve magisterial positivism, according to which we should all treat as certainly true, and thus as at least de facto infallible, whatever happens to be the latest doctrinal statement to emanate from Rome, regardless of who said it and regardless of the forum, type of document, and choice of words in which it was presented.

Simple Faith!.. I hope your getting this.

“..but not if we go by what seems to be the most popular interpretation of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the Vatican II documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio. All of these modern magisterial documents are inconclusive if we search them for an unambiguous answer to the following question: Is salvation possible for those who die not just as non-Catholics, but as non-Christians?”

Couldn't agree more.

That is, can someone reach eternal life who dies without any explicit belief in Jesus Christ as God and Savior? While these modern magisterial documents stop short of answering this question clearly, it cannot be denied that what they say, in conjunction with what they significantly fail to say, leans in the direction of an affirmative answer. However, after much study and reflection, I myself have come to think – in accord with the teaching of St. Thomas – that the correct answer to this question must be negative. And Leonard Feeney of course agreed with the Angelic Doctor on that point.

Mike I take it you don't agree with Fr Harrison here?

This raises the question of to what extent Fr Feeney’s stern (and therefore unpopular) views may have been well founded. It seems only fair to precede my criticism of his position by calling to mind certain points on which I think he was right. First, he deserves credit for protesting vigorously against the rising tide of indifferentism, which is now even more widely diffused than it was in his time. An apparently large majority of professing Catholics now see no urgent need at all to persuade or exhort others to join the original and true Church of Jesus Christ; for they appear to hold that those of any religion or none will reach Heaven by nothing more than just being sincere and decent-living folks. Our modern funerals – with white vestments expressing liturgical jubilation – take on the air of instant canonization ceremonies for all deceased Catholics, practicing or non-practicing, orthodox or dissident. The pains of Purgatory are ignored or glossed over, while Hell (if one believes in it at all) is presumed to be reserved for only a few monsters of iniquity: maybe the occasional Hitler, Stalin, drug lord or mafia don. Fr. Feeney certainly deserves praise for his loud and clear protest against that sort of mentality, especially in this age wherein a one-sided emphasis on ecumenism and interreligious dialogue has very often overshadowed good old-fashioned apologetics and evangelization.

“Overshadowed” being the understatement of the year. More Like “Obliterated.”

II. Defining our terms
In order to explain more completely my disagreement with Fr. Feeney, I will need to define the relevant terms as clearly as possible. The key expression needing clarification in this discussion is of course “Extra Ecclesiam”. (There is little or no controversy among Catholics as to what is meant by “nulla salus”.18) What exactly does it mean to be “outside the Church”? Or, more precisely, what did the Fathers of Florence mean by this expression, since it is their meaning, according to Vatican I’s anathema-laden definition, which must forever be maintained as the only true meaning of the dogma. St. Benedict Center advocates19 often seem to assume that its meaning is self-evident, and so do not trouble to spell it out. One who does, however (although only in passing), is the late Brother Robert Mary, a tertiary (lay) member of St. Benedict Center’s Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He tells us that “Father Feeney was preaching a defined dogma of the Church: the absolute necessity of visible membership in the visible Church for salvation”.20

Neither of the words “visible” or “membership”, however, occurs in the Florentine exposition of the dogma. The author has added them on his own initiative, assuming them to be obviously understood and intended by the Council.

Note that further down Fr Harrison implies that because catechumens are not mentioned along with Jews, Pagans, schismatics and heretics they are not to be included as those outside the Church. He's doing in reverse what he accuses Bro Robert Mary of doing.

But once we begin to inquire a little more closely as to what, in the minds of the Florentine Fathers, are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being situated “outside the Church”, it soon becomes apparent that Bro. Robert Mary’s assumption is very questionable.
Indeed, so is another related assumption that appears to be taken for granted in St. Benedict Center writing, namely, that every human person, at any given moment, is either inside or outside the Church. At first sight that seems to be just plain common sense; but I shall argue that in fact, the authentic tradition of the Church recognizes, at least implicitly, a third and intermediate status. Using an analogy with a physical church building, we can consider the plan of a great basilica such as St. Peter’s in Rome. When you pass from the square between the enormous stone columns of the façade you find yourself in a large portico, in front of the massive doors that lead into the nave of this mighty temple. Now, while you are standing in the portico, are you inside or outside St. Peter’s Basilica? The truth is that neither alternative accurately describes your position. You can’t really be said to be either inside or outside the Basilica, because its boundaries are not officially defined with sufficient sharpness for such a clear-cut judgment to be made. Likewise, one can be in a spiritual situation that is really neither “inside” nor “outside” the Church founded by Christ. From now on I shall refer to such persons as being located in porticu Ecclesiae – in the portico of the Church. And the reality of this intermediate ‘portico’ situation has an important logical consequence: the maxim “outside the Church there is no salvation” does not imply, as it seems to at first sight, that “only inside the Church is there salvation”.
The analogy he uses here is Now, being “inside” the Church clearly means being one of her members. So let us consider this concept of “membership” in the Church. What exactly does it mean? And is it in fact an “absolute necessity . . . for salvation”? Significantly. the words “member” or “membership” occur nowhere in the relevant passage of Cantate Domino. However, there can be no doubt that the Florentine Fathers, along with the Church in all ages, understood that a necessary condition of membership in the Church during the present life21 is having received sacramental baptism – baptism of water. Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis of 1943, confirmed this in giving an authoritative definition of what membership in the Church involves:
The only persons really to be included among the members of the Church are those who have received the washing of regeneration, who profess the true faith, and who have neither separated themselves wretchedly from the unity of the Body nor been cut off from her by legitimate authority for the commission of grave offences.22
This coincides with another classical account of what membership in the Church, that is, fully belonging to her, consists of. St. Robert Bellarmine defines the true Church as:
. . . the congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors and especially under the one Vicar of Christ in earth, the Roman Pontiff. From this definition it can easily be ascertained which men belong to the Church and which do not.23
Bellarmine goes on to point out that in virtue of the second element in the above definition (“communion of the same Sacraments”), “catechumens and excommunicates are excluded [from “belong[ing] to the Church”], because the former are not [yet] admitted to the communion of the Sacraments and the latter have been cut off from them”.24 In line with the same constant Tradition, Vatican Council II affirms “the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.25 (Once again, the analogy with St. Peter’s Basilica is helpful: only when you pass through those giant doors at the inner side of the portico are you truly inside the Basilica.)
Since this is the constant, ancient Catholic faith, it is clear that, for Pope Eugene IV and the Fathers of Florence, catechumens, who had not entered that ‘door’ of the Church which is baptism, could not be “included among [her] members”.
But does this mean that the Council of Florence judged all catechumens to be extra Ecclesiam exsistentes – “situated outside the Church”? If so, then it would be teaching that all who die as catechumens are certainly destined for the eternal fire, for this is precisely the fate infallibly proclaimed by the Council for all those who die extra Ecclesiam.

And of course this is intolerable. We must find a way of including them as being part of the Church even if it means blurring the boudaries.

But it would in fact be totally implausible to attribute such a severe teaching to the Council of Florence.

Why?

By the time the Council met, there had been a consensus for many centuries that the desire for baptism on the part of a catechumen, if informed by theological faith and charity, will be sufficient for salvation if he/she dies unexpectedly before being able to receive the sacrament.

But not a unanimous consensus and definitely not a consensus that could date back to the first half of Church history.

Even more assuredly would a ‘baptism of blood’ save a catechumen who was martyred under persecution.26 This was already the common, approved teaching of theologians, including such great doctors as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure.

But not a constant teaching or neither was it a unanimous one.

Indeed, Pope Innocent II, three centuries before Florence, in an official response to the Bishop of Cremona, had replied “without hesitation”, citing two great Fathers and Doctors, Saints Augustine and Ambrose, to the effect that desire for baptism could be sufficient to save.2

But he wasn't making a ruling on the matter as such.

7 Then, in 1206, Innocent III responded to an inquiry from another bishop as to whether a certain Jew was validly baptized who, in danger of death, had tried to administer the sacrament to himself. While replying in the negative, the Pope affirmed that if such a Jew had died immediately after such an attempt, he would nevertheless be saved “because of faith of the sacrament” (propter sacramenti fidem), even though he had not truly received “the sacrament of faith” (fidei sacramentum).

Again, the popes own non-authoritative judgment

28 And in the century after Florence, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by the authority of Pope St. Pius V, was to teach that, in regard to adults preparing for baptism, the Church does not regard the administration of this sacrament as being so urgent as in the case of newly-born infants, because:. . . should any sudden accident render it impossible for adults to be cleansed in the saving water, their intention and determination to receive it, and their repentance from their previous ill-spent life, will suffice them to grace and justification.

But certainly not to salvation for to this day, “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;”

Given this context of long-standing, unanimous pre- and post-Florentine theological and magisterial teaching in favor of ‘baptism of desire’
This is not a true statement. He needs to delete the word unanimous

, it is clear that the Fathers of this Council must be presumed to have accepted this doctrine.

A mighty big presumption.

The conclusion that they did so is corroborated by their own text: for catechumens are conspicuous by their absence from the Council’s list of those designated as being extra Ecclesiam. If the Fathers of Florence had wished to stigmatize such persons as being “outside the Church”, then that list, logically, should have read: “not only pagans but also Jews, heretics, schismatics and catechumens”

This is the bit I warned about where he does now what he says Bro Robert Mary did above

For this last group plainly does not fall into any of the previous four categories of persons who are said to be “outside the Church”.

Its not plain to me; nor has he proven this presumption.

The conclusion is clear. The Council of Florence certainly does not accept catechumens as being inside the Church – that is, as her members, persons who have ‘entered’ her and fully belong to her. But it is equally clear that the Council does not judge catechumens to be outside the Church,

Where does the council make that judgment?

for that would imply they are all destined for the fires of Hell if they die while in their catechumenal state,

And? Who's to say they are not?

and the Florentine Fathers neither believed nor taught that. In other words, the Fathers were tacitly accepting and implying the existence of the intermediate condition we are calling in porticu Ecclesiae – neither inside nor outside the Church.

This is a mighty big presumption.

Being sacramentally unbaptized, therefore, is not a sufficient condition for being located extra Ecclesiam. Nor is it a necessary condition, since many validly baptized persons, namely, heretics and schismatics, are indeed extra Ecclesiam, as the Florentine profession of faith itself asserts.
However, it is clear that, for Florence, being in the state of sin is indeed a necessary condition for being outside the Church. For only those dying without sanctifying grace (and therefore without charity) will be excluded from Heaven; and the Council declares that all those dying outside the Church will be excluded from Heaven. On the other hand, the lack of sanctifying grace and charity is certainly not a sufficient condition for being outside the Church; for many of her baptized members – orthodox and practicing Roman Catholics – commit mortal sins and so lose grace without thereby placing themselves extra Ecclesiam.

Now he's really into the realm of boundary blurring and comparing like with unlike, that which can be determined visibly with that which can't be determined at all.
Thus far Fr Harrison has proved nothing concerning the true meaning of Florence and has not refuted Fr Feemey nor even those hard-core Feeneyites whom he mentioned earlier.

That's enough for now.

Roguejim Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:24 pm

Jehanne wrote:There's nothing personal in it, and I thought that it would be useful for this forum:

Dear Father Harrison,

I am a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, and I very much enjoyed reading your essay, "Father Feeney and the Implicitum Votum Ecclesiae Part A. Who Is In Fact ‘Outside The Church’?" available here:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt149.html

(I provide these links for the courtesy of my religious superior, Brother Andre Marie, and my Third Order mentor, Mr. Gene DeLalla.)

Let me say from the onset that I agree, in essence, with everything that you state in your article, but before coming to the "contentious" issue of "Category 7," I would like to make a few observations up front. First, I believe that your article would have benefited from the following text given at the Council of Florence:

"The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed."

My second observation has to do with your statement, "The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess" (p. 26). It follows that any doctrinally novel affirmation that may be found in the CCC (such as the statement in #1261 encouraging us to hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism) should not be seen as a new intervention of the authentic magisterium that would require the assent of all Catholics." Of course, if the Magisterium is allowing us to have "hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism," then certainly, we are also "allowed to have hope" for all the martyrs who have been alleged to have died without Baptism, our hope being that they did, in fact, die with Baptism, if only by miraculous means. Likewise, if the recent International Theological Commission can find positive reasons in the Church's Magisterium and liturgy for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, then certainly we can find positive reasons as to why those whom the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life have, without exception, also been predestined by Him to end this life with Sacramental Baptism in Water. For we all agree, that is better to die with Baptism than without it.

As Catholics, are we called to "have faith" in things which do not occur? As for an alleged unbaptized martyr ending his/her life without the Sacrament, are we asked to "believe in a negative" much less try to "prove" one, that is, that something did not occur, in this case, that someone who had died was, in fact, not baptized? Were the faithful who attended the funeral Masses of such martyrs in times past explicitly told "not to hope" that the individual, in question, was not sacramentally baptized before that person's untimely death? It seems silly to even ask such questions. For, once again, we all agree that it is better to die with Baptism than without it, so it seems heretical and absurd to say that the faithful are "not allowed" to find positive reasons within the Church's tradition as to why the One and Triune God may at least be willing to provide Baptism to all who sincerely desire that Sacrament, if only by miraculous means or perhaps even an angel, as Saint Thomas discusses in his Summa.

As for Category 7, there is no doubt that such a category of individuals exist. At the posthumous Trial of Rehabiliation of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, "Joan of Arc"), Inquisitor-General Jean Brehal talked about Joan's "simplicity" in not understanding some of the deep theological concepts that had been presented to her a quarter of century earlier at her Trial of Condemnation and how such simplicity excused her from the sin of heresy, even if some of her replies to the Inquisition trying her appeared to be contrary to the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, no English translation exists for Brehal's "Summarium" anywhere online, but in it, Archbishop Brehal makes clear the Church's distinction between material & formal heresy.

Still, does "No" always mean "Yes" or even most of the time? After all, if individuals in Category 7 truly do have human free will, whether they are born as Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants, etc., do not they have the ability to choose what they do and do not profess? And, how could you, I, or anyone else possibly ever presume to know that someone was even in Category 7 or in Category 8? Or, how could someone in Category 7 ever truly "know" that he/she was, in fact, in that category and not in Category 8? After all, if we assume that someone was in Category 7 but that person was, in fact, in Category 8, will we have made a grievous error with respect to the eternal salvation of that person's immortal soul, and equally important, the salvation of our own soul? Conversely, if we presume someone to be in Category 8 but who was, in fact, in Category 7, what "harm" could we possibly do to that person's chances of eternal salvation by speaking the Truth to them?

Either way, whether Category 7 is "nearly full" or "nearly empty" vis-à-vis Category 8, we should be always be truthful, shouldn't we? For in proclaiming the Truth to those individuals who are in Category 7 & 8 (indeed, all the other categories, also!) how could we ever be "harming" them in any way, shape, or form? We should all hope that Category 7 is full as compared to Category 8, but since we can never know that Category 8 is completely empty, our mission should be clear -- to proclaim the One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

This is why I have chosen to be a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center. I hope that my thoughts on this matter have been useful.

Blessings,

Don

Will you be requesting permission to post Fr. Harrison's response, should he offer one to you? He usually does.

Jehanne Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:47 pm

He has not replied to me, and I have no immediate plans on emailing him again. If he does reply, I will request, explicitly (no "implicit" assumptions here), his permission to post his response to this forum.

Roguejim Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:42 am

I copy/pasted this posting, and emailed it to Fr. Harrison. He replied saying he never received your email.

Jehanne Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:18 am

I don't have his personal email address. I emailed my letter to the address that was at the top of his essay. I did copy Brother Andre, who did reply to me, so the email was sent, unless Google (Gmail) ditched it.

MRyan Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:57 am

Columba, in Endnote 30, Fr. Harrison is talking to you:

Often heard coming from Fr. Feeney’s more theologically deficient disciples is an appeal to the Council of Trent’s fifth canon on baptism, which they mistakenly think teaches that the desire for baptism can never be sufficient for salvation. The canon asserts, “If anyone shall say that [sacramental] baptism is optional (liberum), that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema” (Dz 861 = DS 1618). Such folks misunderstand this canon, neglecting the crucial word “optional”. The canon anathematizes only those radical Protestants who were saying that true (sacramental) baptism is not necessary for salvation in any sense at all, not even by necessity of precept (cf. Part B, note 49). In other words, the anathema is aimed only at the Socinians and others who were saying that baptism is ‘free’ or ‘optional’ in the same way the sacrament of marriage is: i.e., that each Christian has the right to choose freely whether to receive it or not.

Speaking of theologically deficient, if I may bring this over from the other thread, you wrote:

columba wrote
MRyan wrote
Since you admit that the OT just received the remission of sins and the merits of the Redeemer to come, whereby the Holy Ghost dwelled and resided by sanctifying grace in the souls of the just; you have yet to answer how the OT just could be justified and saved without actual sacramental ablution. If water Baptism is absolutely intrinsic to eternal beatitude, then every single soul in heaven would have had to have received the same Sacrament; which means every single one of the OT just would have had to have been raised from dead and materially Baptized prior to their entrance into Heaven.
Yes I have answered this before and will do so again.

A thing becomes absolutely intrinsic to salvation the moment the Lord declares it so. Whether it was intrinsic before or not, it now becomes intrinsic.

It was not intrinsic for our salvation that Christ become incarnate, suffer and die. God could have chosen another way if He so wished. Because he chose as He did it now becomes intrinsic to our salvaton and without this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature, no one at all could be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new. All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Let’s follow the “logic”:

Water baptism is intrinsic to salvation in the same way that our Lord’s Redemption is intrinsic to salvation; for, while it was not necessary for God to send His Son to Redeem us, once He did so, no one can “be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new” without “this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature”, and hence, “All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.”

According to your logic, under the Old Law, circumcision was the chosen "method which God Himself decided upon" to which all men "are bound" as a matter of intrinsic necessity, without which, the beatific vision would be impossible to realize.

Such logic condemns all of the justified females who worshiped God under the law, and all of those who worshiped God (with an implicit faith in the Redeemer to come), but were not under the Old Covenant, to damnation.

So tell us, Columba, was there ever a time in salvation history when one could be redeemed without “this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature”?

The answer, of course, in NO; which shoots your analogy down for the fallacy that it is.

The application of the redemptive action of Christ as a remedy to our fallen nature is intrinsic to salvation; meaning, it is intrinsic to every man in every age without exception. What is NOT intrinsic to the remedy is the “method” or instrument by which this redemptive act is externally applied to the soul, as you yourself attest when you write:

“Those existing under the old covenant were justified through circumcision; those of the new covenant through Baptism which was not demanded of the former.”

And, those who lived before the Old Law could be saved without recourse to circumcision.

Meaning, of course, that there is a difference between that which is actually intrinsic to salvation (the Redemptive merits of Christ being applied to the soul), and the method or instrument by which this is accomplished; with the ordinary and chief means of sanctification differing according to the age in which one lives. What each age has in common, however, is the fact that the remedy could be applied through an internal “circumcision of the heart”, otherwise knows as an "act of love", or that charity which vivifies faith (and is intrinsic to salvation).

You are simply confusing and conflating the “method” with the “remedy”. With respect to intrinsic necessity, Baptism is not a remedy in the strict sense, it is the instrumental means of conveyance for the application of that remedy which is intrinsic to eternal beatitude; but it is not, contrary to your deficient and novel theology, the only instrumental means, especially when our Lord chooses to act as the divine instrument (since He is already the first, the final, the efficient, the meritorious and the alone formal cause of justification – with this translation being the result of the remedy).

I’m afraid, columba, that your propensity for redefining theological terms is just one more example of how deficient your theology actually is. You just make it up as you go, just as you made up a new understanding for Pope Pius XII’s very clear and unambiguous reaffirmation of traditional Church teaching when he declared:

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

And you have the audacity to say “You say that he doesn't confirm the necessity of Baptism for all men; that an act of love is possible outside of baptism and so baptism is not necessary", when I said no such thing.

But, you once again simply equate “necessity” with intrinsic necessity, when Pope Pius XII clearly teaches that the act of love and sanctifying grace are intrinsic to eternal beatitude, while the divinely instituted and ecclesiastical instrument of conveyance is not itself intrinsic to eternal beatitude, but serves, as Pope Leo XIII declared, as the ordinary and chief means of sanctification; otherwise, an act of love could NOT be "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."

Now why would Pope Pius XII bother to affirm that An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism;”, and then immediately follow with “to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open”, if “this way” is not really open to the adult after all, but Pope Pius XII just likes to hear himself speculate on “this way” that is not actually possible?

And I’m the one who brings a “preconceived” understanding to his words?

That would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Jehanne Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:09 am

Mike,

Even Father Harrison admits that Father Feeney's disciples (of which I include myself) are at least "tolerated" by the Magisterium of the Church. Again, if everything that you are saying about Columba is true, how is his position harmful to the Faith? I started this thread, so I have every "right" to ask this question. (Of course, I could ask this even if I didn't start this thread!)

One item which you have constantly (and, might I add, perniciously) ignored is the Blessed Virgin Mary's revelations at Fatima where She revealed that most of humanity will be damned to Hell. In light of this, once again, how is Columba's position harmful to the Faith and, especially, the salvation of souls?

tornpage Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:40 am

Jehanne,

One item which you have constantly (and, might I add, perniciously) ignored is the Blessed Virgin Mary's revelations at Fatima where She revealed that most of humanity will be damned to Hell.

Since this is addressed to Mike, I'll let him answer - it should take all of a minute or two.

But where do you get the idea from any of Mike's posts, or in Pope Pius XII's recognition that an "act of love" may "supply the lack of baptism" for salvation and justification, that the majority of humanity will not be damned to Hell?

That fact could easily exist with the sufficiency and availability of an "act of love," which as you repeatedly claim, is something which may very well be rare and is, after all, extraordinary - as Pope Leo XIII noted, the sacraments are the "ordinary" manner of justification.

MRyan Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:44 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Even Father Harrison admits that Father Feeney's disciples (of which I include myself) are at least "tolerated" by the Magisterium of the Church. Again, if everything that you are saying about Columba is true, how is his position harmful to the Faith? I started this thread, so I have every "right" to ask this question. (Of course, I could ask this even if I didn't start this thread!)

The position is harmful when, as Fr. Harrison also says, the magisterial teaching of the Church on an implicit desire for baptism and to be united to the Church is deemed by Feenyites as not only of being in error, but of being “heretical”.

Columba is on record, for example, as saying that the Church’s magisterial teaching on Particular Churches is ambiguous, and should be held as heretical until proven otherwise.

He makes the same accusation of “ambiguity” against Pope Pius XII in his magisterial reaffirmation that for adults “an act of love” is sufficient for the lack of Baptism, and the pope immediately follows by saying “this way” is not open to unbaptized infants; but columba doesn’t have the guts to apply the same standard of heresy to Pope Pius XII as he does to Pope Benedict XVI, who teaches the same doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Rather, he ignores the clear words of the Pius XII and assigns a totally contradictory meaning by pretending that the same pope teaches elsewhere that an act of love is not possible without water Baptism, when he teaches no such thing, and everyone knows it.

It is always harmful to the faith to place one’s private interpretation of doctrine against the clear, consistent, authentic and ordinary teaching of the Magisterium -- which also just happens to enjoy a universal moral consensus among the doctors and theologians.

As I said, Fr. Harrison seems unaware of the "official position" of the St. Benedict Center NH on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of an act of love which places one in a state of non-salvific sanctifying grace. He only addresses the opinion of those like Brian Kelly who argues the point from the perspective of Divine Providence, while affirming that such a state of grace is always salvific – even if he believes no one actually dies in this non-water regenerated sanctified state.

Kelly’s position is tolerable, the St. Benedict Center NH position denies the salvific efficacy of sanctifying grace that does not find its so-called “fulfillment” in water baptism. That, as far as I am concerned, is “dangerous” to the faith, for it denies the very definition of justification under the new law of grace.

Jehanne wrote:
One item which you have constantly (and, might I add, perniciously) ignored is the Blessed Virgin Mary's revelations at Fatima where She revealed that most of humanity will be damned to Hell. In light of this, once again, how is Columba's position harmful to the Faith and, especially, the salvation of souls?

If you are going to accuse me of some willful obstinate avoidance of an alleged argument which I have not at all ignored, just making the accusation does not make it true.

First of all, please cite where our Blessed Mother’s revealed at Fatima “that most of humanity will be damned to Hell”. Seriously, provide the proof where she actually said this. Does the awful vision of innumerable souls falling into hell that was revealed to the children prove "that most of humanity will be damned to Hell”? It proves no such thing.

Furthermore, to the point made by Tornpage, what does the "fewness of the saved" have to do with the magisterial teaching of the Church which says an act of love is sufficient for the lack of Baptism? Does the "fewness of the saved" somehow negate this teaching?

You are consistent with your logical fallacies, I must say.

Jehanne Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:25 pm

Mike,

If you have a problem with Father Harrison's scholarship, you should take that up with him instead of calumniating him on this forum. Here are those references from Sister Lucia:

Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror. (Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I, 2003, pg. 123.)

'About the war that is coming. So many people are going to die, and almost all of them are going to hell! Many homes will be destroyed, and many priests will be killed. Look, I am going to heaven, and as for you when you see the light which the Lady told us would come one night before the war, you run up there too.' " (Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I, 2003, pg. 65-66)

As I replied to Father Harrison, I told him that it is heretical and absurd to claim with absolute certainty that I am in a state of grace, and if I cannot make that claim about myself, how could I make such a claim about anyone else, especially, someone who is outside the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church?

If imperfect contrition is not sufficient for the forgiveness of mortal sins, then why "pick a fight" with people like Columba? Why not spend your time arguing with "New Ways" ministries (or whatever their name is) who are leading people to believe that gay sex, fornication, masturbation, etc. are licit and moral? Why not confront these so-called "Catholic" priests and theologians with their errors and heresies? Even Father Harrison admits that the Dimond brothers may only be "materially schismatic," so what is to be gained by continuing to argue with the "hard-core Feeneyites"?

MRyan Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:27 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If you have a problem with Father Harrison's scholarship, you should take that up with him instead of calumniating him on this forum.

You know, Jehanne, it takes some audacity for someone who can't resist imposing his non-relevant comments on my posts to dictate to me what I should take up with Fr. Harrison.

I also resent your accusation of calumny against me. Your keyboard is getting struck, but there is nothing behind it. I'm not the one accusing the pope of heresy. Have you put away your sede shoes for good?

I don't have a problem with the scholarship of Fr. Harrison, and never suggested that I did. I simply said he does not appear to be aware of the "official position" of the St. Benedict Center, NH, which has nothing to do with his "scholarship", and more to do with the fact that he does not read everything that gets printed on the St. Benedict Center website.

I do have a problem with your scholarship, and the lack thereof.

Jehanne wrote:
Here are those references from Sister Lucia:

Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror. (Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I, 2003, pg. 123.)

And? Does this have anything to do with an act of love being sufficient for the lack of Baptism? Did our Blessed Mother reveal that "most of humanity will be damned to Hell'? And even if you infer that one can make this assumption, how does that negate the sufficiency of an act of love, except to say that hearts have turned cold in this age of unbelief, and true acts of love are probably rare? Again, what does the fewness of the saved have to do with the doctrine on an act of love?

Jehanne wrote:
'About the war that is coming. So many people are going to die, and almost all of them are going to hell! Many homes will be destroyed, and many priests will be killed. Look, I am going to heaven, and as for you when you see the light which the Lady told us would come one night before the war, you run up there too.' " (Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I, 2003, pg. 65-66)

Those are the words of Jacinta, and represent her impressions of the visions of hell and the future war. As the footnote says, "Lucia wants to convey, in these words, how such visions caused terror in the soul of little Jacinta."

Once again, what does the revelation to the children about "the vision of hell and the ruin of many souls who go there, or again, the future war with all its horrors, which seemed to be present to her [Jacinta's] mind" have to do with an act of love sufficing for the lack of Baptism? (The citation is from Fatima in Lucia's own words, 2000 edition, p. 116.)

Jehanne wrote:As I replied to Father Harrison, I told him that it is heretical and absurd to claim with absolute certainty that I am in a state of grace, and if I cannot make that claim about myself, how could I make such a claim about anyone else, especially, someone who is outside the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church?

And why you think Fr. Harrison owes a response to such a ridiculous statement is beyond me. Who is asking you to make a claim of absolute certainty that anyone, baptized or not, is in a state of grace? Certainly not Fr. Harrison, and certainly not the Church. Why do you persist with these inanities?

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about saying such things?

Jehanne wrote:If imperfect contrition is not sufficient for the forgiveness of mortal sins, then why "pick a fight" with people like Columba?

I am not picking any fights, I am exposing his errors, to include the audacity it takes to level accusations of heresy and error against the teaching authority of the Church.

If you don't like it, too bad, go back to your blog.

Jehanne wrote: Why not spend your time arguing with "New Ways" ministries (or whatever their name is) who are leading people to believe that gay sex, fornication, masturbation, etc. are licit and moral? Why not confront these so-called "Catholic" priests and theologians with their errors and heresies? Even Father Harrison admits that the Dimond brothers may only be "materially schismatic," so what is to be gained by continuing to argue with the "hard-core Feeneyites"?

Why not spend your time bloviating about things you do not understand on your blog?

And I can appreciate the fact that you assume you know about my private correspondence, about which you know nothing.

I don't care if the Dimonds, columba and foot are only guilty of "material" schism and heresy; schism and heresy are still schism and heresy. What difference does it make if it comes from liberals, or so called traditionalists? Only the latter have the chutzpah to make the accusation of heresy and even apostasy against the Sacred Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

So, rad trads and sede's get a free pass because they get some of it right?

Sorry.

Jehanne Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:41 pm

Mike,

Once again, my religious beliefs are really "none of your business," okay? If you want to talk about theological ideas, great! However, dragging out my "sede shoes" is off-topic, both for this forum and this thread. Got it?! As I told you before, I am not in full-communion with Rome, and I have never denied that fact. I would, for instance, have no qualms about attending a Mass said/sung by a CMRI, SSPV, etc., priest. Obviously, I could only assume that you, a "card carrying Novus Ordo Catholic" would definitively not assist at one of those Masses, unless, of course, there was some grave necessity of having to do so.

In any case, you're "missing the boat," and have been almost since Day 1. Father Harrison is, however, "right on the mark." The Saint Benedict Center does not care about Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. It's a sidebar to our mission, which is to convert anyone and everyone to the One True Faith & Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. If the Pope tomorrow (and yes, once again, I think that he is the one holding the Keys) would define Baptism of Desire and/or Blood and even define that there were individuals in Paradise who had died without Baptism, the Saint Benedict Center would not even "miss a beat." It's irrelevant to our divine calling. Father Harrison understands that completely, but apparently, you do not.

By the way, I and Father Harrison had a nice, but short, correspondence with each other. Unlike you, he was polite and courteous.

MRyan Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:44 pm

If you have a problem with Father Harrison's scholarship, you should take that up with him instead of calumniating him on this forum.

Calumny:

1. The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.
2. A false and slanderous statement.

Jehanne, I am afraid that I am going to have to insist that you demonstrate where I wrote a single calumny against Fr. Harrison.

If you can't, then retract the slander.

Jehanne Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:49 pm

You stated,

"As I said, Fr. Harrison seems unaware of the "official position" of the St. Benedict Center NH on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of an act of love which places one in a state of non-salvific sanctifying grace.

This statement is false. Here is a brief biography of Father Harrison at the Saint Benedict Center Website:

http://catholicism.org/author/fatherbrianharrisonos

He was at one of the Saint Benedict Center's conferences several years ago. He knows fully-well what the positions of the Saint Benedict Center are. If you don't believe me, ask him.

columba Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:42 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Yes I have answered this before and will do so again.

A thing becomes absolutely intrinsic to salvation the moment the Lord declares it so. Whether it was intrinsic before or not, it now becomes intrinsic.

It was not intrinsic for our salvation that Christ become incarnate, suffer and die. God could have chosen another way if He so wished. Because he chose as He did it now becomes intrinsic to our salvaton and without this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature, no one at all could be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new. All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Let’s follow the “logic”:

Water baptism is intrinsic to salvation in the same way that our Lord’s Redemption is intrinsic to salvation; for, while it was not necessary for God to send His Son to Redeem us, once He did so, no one can “be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new” without “this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature”, and hence, “All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.”

Yes. The blood of Christ is intrinsic to the salvation of all and the water, the blood and the spirit are inseparable. I stand with St. Ambrose on this who in the fourth century was well aware of the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation:

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."

MRyan wrote:
According to your logic, under the Old Law, circumcision was the chosen "method which God Himself decided upon" to which all men "are bound" as a matter of intrinsic necessity, without which, the beatific vision would be impossible to realize.

Such logic condemns all of the justified females who worshiped God under the law, and all of those who worshiped God (with an implicit faith in the Redeemer to come), but were not under the Old Covenant, to damnation.

No Mike, it is your logic that is flawed. Women were not required to undergo circumcision for the simple reason that it was God who was making the rules. If God requires it, it becomes intrinsic, if not, it remains unnecessary.

So tell us, Columba, was there ever a time in salvation history when one could be redeemed without “this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature”?

NO.

The application of the redemptive action of Christ as a remedy to our fallen nature is intrinsic to salvation; meaning, it is intrinsic to every man in every age without exception. What is NOT intrinsic to the remedy is the “method” or instrument by which this redemptive act is externally applied to the soul, as you yourself attest when you write:

“Those existing under the old covenant were justified through circumcision; those of the new covenant through Baptism which was not demanded of the former.”

Again, the application of the merits of Christ are as intrinsic as the redemptive action of Christ. Why? Because Christ Himself says so. (John 3:5).

And, those who lived before the Old Law could be saved without recourse to circumcision.

Those who were bound by the law of circumcision were required to be circumcised. Those who are bound by the law of Baptism are required to be baptized, for as the Truth says, (and this will always be the brick wall against which your theory of baptism of desire will collide and come to grief) "unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Meaning, of course, that there is a difference between that which is actually intrinsic to salvation (the Redemptive merits of Christ being applied to the soul), and the method or instrument by which this is accomplished; with the ordinary and chief means of sanctification differing according to the age in which one lives. What each age has in common, however, is the fact that the remedy could be applied through an internal “circumcision of the heart”, otherwise knows as an "act of love", or that charity which vivifies faith (and is intrinsic to salvation).

The circumcision of heart did not absolve those under the old law from physical circumcision, and as Our Lord Himself said, "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48).
The fulfilling of the requirements of the new covenant (for them who have received more) will be of even greater necessity for the giver Himself has already stated so in person, (John 3:5)
If an act of love were possible before incorporation into Christ through Baptism, then that act of love would suffice. The very reason for the existance of Baptism is to make this act possible for it is obvious that for many even baptism will be received to no effect.

You are simply confusing and conflating the “method” with the “remedy”. With respect to intrinsic necessity, Baptism is not a remedy in the strict sense, it is the instrumental means of conveyance for the application of that remedy which is intrinsic to eternal beatitude;

Christ does not agree with you Mike and neither does Trent, "for as it is written," (John 3:5).

I’m afraid, columba, that your propensity for redefining theological terms is just one more example of how deficient your theology actually is. You just make it up as you go, just as you made up a new understanding for Pope Pius XII’s very clear and unambiguous reaffirmation of traditional Church teaching when he declared:

And I'm afraid your wrong Mike,
and we shall see how many more doctrines must be made up in support of baptism of desire before the error becomes so obvious that it can no longer be sustained.
Thus far we have Invincible Ignorance, a redefined meaning of membershp, and a brand of ecumenism bordering on apostasy. What you reckon will be next?

..while the divinely instituted and ecclesiastical instrument of conveyance is not itself intrinsic to eternal beatitude, but serves, as Pope Leo XIII declared, as the ordinary and chief means of sanctification;

Can you show me where he said this? Was he not speaking of the sacraments in general of which not all are necessary fo everyone?

Now why would Pope Pius XII bother to affirm that An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism;”, and then immediately follow with “to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open”, if “this way” is not really open to the adult after all, but Pope Pius XII just likes to hear himself speculate on “this way” that is not actually possible?

Simple. Because if this way were possible (in theory) outside the sacrament, it would still remain impossible for the unbaptized infant who is incapable of making any act.
You've read more into the words of Pius XII than are actually there.
It's strange how you can't read dogmatic pronouncements (which are clear) with the same simplicity you profess to be reading the words of Pius XII.

And I’m the one who brings a “preconceived” understanding to his words?

Yes. I think it's not clear to you as yet.

That would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Pathetic is a strong word that I won't use until the smoke clears and the truths of the faith become obvious once more. I'll give the same fools pardon to he sede's and even the neo cons while the diabolic disorientation continues. If I be one of its victims I pray the Lord will grant me the same.

MRyan Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:41 am

Jehanne wrote:You stated,

"As I said, Fr. Harrison seems unaware of the "official position" of the St. Benedict Center NH on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of an act of love which places one in a state of non-salvific sanctifying grace.
This statement is false. Here is a brief biography of Father Harrison at the Saint Benedict Center Website:

http://catholicism.org/author/fatherbrianharrisonos

He was at one of the Saint Benedict Center's conferences several years ago. He knows fully-well what the positions of the Saint Benedict Center are. If you don't believe me, ask him.

Again, Jehanne, I expect you to retract your slanderous accusation of calumny.

I too was at one of the St. Benedict Center’s conferences several yeas ago, and know full well what the positions of the Saint Benedict Center are. If you don’t believe me, read my various detailed posts on this topic.

Here is my original statement that elicited your slanderous accusation of calumny:

As far as Fr. Harrsion goes, he appears to have only conducted a superficial examination of the writings of the St. Benedict Center, and has yet to comment on their real error, that of denying the salvific efficacy of “an act of love” found in baptism of blood and baptism of desire; and rendering a state of sanctifying grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) as incapable of translating a soul into the state of divine son-ship without water Baptism.

Now, where is the calumny in that? Do you even know what the word means? It is obvious you don’t care what it means; you are going to sling (and stand by) the slanderous accusation nonetheless.

Here, once again, is what Fr. Harrison wrote:

In spite of Vatican II’s footnote confirming this Holy Office decision, the controversy which flared as a result of Fr. Feeney’s severe interpretation of the aforesaid dogma has never really been laid to rest. At least, not in the United States, where small but convinced and articulate groups of Catholics continue to defend and propagate Feeney’s distinctive teaching. This can be adequately summarized in the following proposition postulating two requirements for reaching eternal life:

[To reach eternal salvation, it is necessary (though not sufficient): (a) to have been baptized sacramentally(5); and to die sincerely professing the Catholic faith and one’s own personal submission to the Roman Pontiff.]

Endnote 5: Fr. Feeney’s position eventually became still more rigorous than that for which he was censured by Rome in 1949. From 1952 until his death he no longer held that “baptism of desire” could be sufficient for salvation, even in the case of a catechumen who dies during preparation for sacramental baptism with an explicit desire and intention to join the Roman Catholic Church. As regards “baptism of blood” – the violent death of a catechumen who voluntarily sacrifices his life for love of Christ and the faith during persecution – Feeney and his followers do not exactly deny that this would be sufficient for salvation. Rather, they deny that such a thing has ever happened in fact, or ever could happen. They argue that God’s Providence will infallibly see to it that any catechumen with such heroic faith and charity will always receive the waters of baptism prior to being slain by the persecutor. This of course requires them to explain away all testimonies of catechumens being martyred before baptism as historically unreliable, and in fact false. In the case of Fr. Feeney himself, this post-1952 severity regarding baptism – cf. (a) in our main text above – was held as a personal opinion, which he said he would be prepared to renounce if the Church expressly passed judgment against it. He consistently maintained, however, that the denial of requirement (b) above is heresy.

I stand by my remarks, for, actually, “As regards ‘baptism of blood’ [and baptism of desire]” the “official position” of St. Benedict Center NH does in fact “exactly deny that this would be sufficient for salvation”, for it posits that an “act of love” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives), while sufficient to place one in a state of grace, is insufficient to translate a soul into substantial unity with Christ as His adopted son and true heir to the Kingdom:

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. The Church having never censured them, they can be understood in an orthodox sense (as St. Thomas understood them), and I have no beef with those who advance these notions.” (see "Comments" section, response to “Mark”, February 27, 2008 2:32 pm; http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/#comments)

This is more than just a denial that the Providence of God could allow such a thing to happen in fact, it is an “exact” denial “that ‘Baptism of Desire and of Blood’ would be sufficient for salvation” – period; for, as Br. Andre wrote, by their very nature, neither Baptism of Desire nor of Blood is truly efficacious in effecting a salvific regeneration into Christ.

Brother Michael, M.I.C.M., in his article, Father Feeney and Catholic Doctrine — A Reply to Verbum, explains why neither Baptism of Desire nor of Blood is truly efficacious in effecting a salvific regeneration into Christ (http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html):

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.” If I am adopted by a human father, he may treat me beforehand as a son, bestowing upon me his paternal affection, but until I enter his house and am admitted into his very life, I am only inchoatively his son.

In other words, for the faith and charity filled justified soul, true salvific justification has been realized only in potential, but not in fact.

This sounds like the unfulfilled (but salvific!) justification under the old dispensation, and it is NOT the justification under the new law of grace as defined by Trent.

In fact, one of the books the Center promotes is Mike Malone's The Only Begotten which spells out in very clear terms the non-salvific nature of this "deficient" form of (post-Gospel) sanctifying grace.

Again, the official position of the St. Benedict Center, NH, denies the salvific efficacy of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire. This is not conjecture; this is a fact as I interpret the clear meaning of their stated position, for what else can “I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament)” mean, except what it says – that the Baptisms of Blood and Desire are, by their very nature, non-salvific.

If Fr. Harrison is not aware of that (and it does not appear that he is - does he read all of the comments in Br. Andre's various blog entries?), or contests that, fine – we have a point of disagreement. But a point of disagreement is not calumny.

If you are not going to retract your slander, then don’t bother addressing any more of my posts – for I will not respond.

Jehanne Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:16 pm

Mike,

It's a message board; if you don't want to respond, don't. I have read both of Father Harrison's essays, and I think that he has done an excellent job representing the views of his "opponents." Your attempts at "quote mining" are laughable and pathetic, trying to "pin people down" with what they say in some comment section. At this point, you can take things up with Father Harrison and Brother Andre; they can speak for themselves.

I retract nothing; I think that your little diatribe against Father Harrison's scholarship was calumnious. If anything, I have found Father Harrison to be thorough with respect to his sources, even though I don't agree with everything which he has to say. When trying to understand Brother Andre's position, stick with his official essays and do not try to "selectively cherry-pick apart" what he might state in some comment section.

MRyan Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:42 pm

Jehanne wrore:
I retract nothing; I think that your little diatribe against Father Harrison's scholarship was calumnious.

Then I will have nothing more to do with you. There was no diatribe, there was no calumny and there was absolutely no disparaging remarks whatsoever directed against the person of Fr. Harrison, or his scholarship.

And it wasn’t just the “comments” of Br. Andre (where he replies to questions about his stated position that he writes about on his Blog) that the “official position” can be discerned; I have provided plenty of cumulative evidence; and I could care less what you “think” or that you prefer to keep your head in the sand; you have zero credibility in my book.

You are as reputable as your 3rd Order tertiary membership and phony vow to remain in communion with the Holy Father, and as reputable as your pathetic blog.

Go ahead, write to the webmaster and threaten to have the forum shut down again; it’s what you do when your out of control screeds and slanderous accusations are not sufficiently moderated.

You aren't man enough to admit you made a false and slanderous accusation.

Be gone from me – we’re finished.

Jehanne Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:14 pm

Uh, I never threatened to do any such thing, but alas, that "culminate side" of you is rearing its ugly head again. Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison. 189770

Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison. 189770

I am glad that you now fully accept Father Harrison's scholarship, because I think that he has done a wonderful job of describing "us," your persistent caricatures notwithstanding.

MRyan Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:29 pm

Jeheanne wrote:

I have asked Rasha for control of this board. If and when he gives it to me, I am willing to give you (and everyone else) a "second chance," a fresh start. If Rasha does not respond to me, I am going to complain to the owners of this website ("free forums"), stating that the owner of the forum has abandoned it, and therefore, it should be closed.

Here are my rules when and if I get control of this board: [blah, blah, blah]

I have not heard from Rasha; I have sent an email to "free forums" support requesting that this board be taken down, since it is no longer moderated.

Any insults from you, however minor, will result in a ticket to the "free forums" support staff.

I have sent an email to "free forums" support requesting that this board be taken down, since it is no longer moderated.

I believe that such ongoing behavior constitutes a violation of the TOS of this website. I should have reported you long ago …

My board will be run differently, that, I promise.

My ticket has already been submitted; the owners of this website have far more experience managing it than do either us. They have a right to know that the forum owner and moderator have both abandoned it.

Jehanne Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:17 pm

So what, Mike, that was what, four or five months ago??? When, in this thread, have I made such a claim?! "Get over it!" (Perhaps you do need a break.)

Sponsored content

Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.

Re: Does "No" mean "Yes"? -- my email to Father Brian Harrison.